[Price,  Fifty  Cents  net ] 


THE  DEFENCE 


PROFESSOR  BRIGGS 


BEFORE 

THE  PRESBYTERY  OF  YEW  YORK 


December  13,  Ilf.,  15,  and  19,  1892 


NEW  YORK 

CHARLES  SCRIBNER’S  SONS 

1893 


1 


■V 


t 


i: 


THE  DEFENCE  OF  PROFESSOR  BRIGGS 


THE  DEFENCE 


OF 


PROFESSOR  BRIOOS 

BEFORE 

THE  PRESBYTERY  OF  NEW  YORK 


December  IS,  11+,  15,  and  19,  1892 


NEW  YORK 

CHARLES  SCRIBNER’S  SONS 

1893 


Copyright,  1893,  by 
CHARLES  SCRIBNER’S  SONS 


CONTENTS 


PRELIMINARY  REMARKS. 

PAGES 

(1)  A  court  of  Jesus  Christ ;  (2)  The  character  of  the  argument  of 
the  prosecution ;  (3)  The  serious  charges  not  offerer!  for  proba¬ 
tion  ;  (4)  The  unlawful  use  of  the  proofs  from  Holy  Scripture 
and  the  Standards ;  (5)  The  contempt  of  court  in  the  argument 
upon  Charges  IV.  and  VII.  ;  (6)  The  neglect  of  the  Standards  of 
the  Church ;  (7)  The  evidence  from  the  writings  of  the  defend¬ 
ant  ;  (8)  The  prosecution  have  no  case . vii-xx 


I.— -The  Rule  of  Faith. 

(1)  Dangerous  errors ;  (2)  A  double  rule ;  (3)  System  of  doctrine : 

(4)  The  Constitution  a  compact;  (5)  The  right  of  making  ex¬ 
planations,  ..........  1-21 


II. — Is  the  Bible  the  only  Fountain  of  Divine  Authority? 

(1)  Analysis  of  Charges  I.  and  II.  ;  (2)  The  evidence  offered  by  the 
prosecution  from  Holy  Scripture  tested  ;  (3)  Their  evidence  from 
the  Westminster  Standards  reviewed, . 21-44 


III.  — The  Reason. 

(1)  The  Westminster  doctrine  ;  (2)  The  Biblical  doctrine  ;  (3)  The  evi¬ 
dence  from  Christian  experience  ;  (4)  The  case  of  Martineau,  45-G7 

IV. — The  Church. 

(1)  The  Westminster  doctrine ;  (2)  The  Biblical  doctrine ;  (3)  The 
testimony  of  Christian  experience ;  (4)  The  case  of  Newman ; 

(5)  The  case  of  Spurgeon  ;  (6)  Do  we  co-ordinate  the  Bible,  the 
Church,  and  the  Reason?  .......  67-83 


VI 


CONTENTS 


V. — The  Inerrancy  of  Holy  Scripture. 

PAGES 

(1)  Analysis  of  Charge  III.  ;  (2)  The  deliverance  of  the  General  Assem¬ 
bly  respecting  errors  in  Holy  Scripture  ;  (3)  Plenary  inspiration  ; 

(4)  “  The  word  of  God  written  (5)  “  Is”  or  “  contains”  the  word 
of  God?  (6)  “Immediately  inspired  ;”  (7)  “Kept  pure  in  all  ages  ;” 

(8)  Some  of  the  errors  recognized  by  Christian  scholars,  .  84-115 


VI. — The  Authenticity  of  Holy  Scripture. 

(1)  Analysis  of  Charge  IV.  ;  (2)  The  argument  from  the  Westmin¬ 
ster  Confession  ;  (3)  Consent  of  all  the  parts ;  (4)  The  infallible 
rule  of  interpretation  ;  (5)  The  dogmatic  bridge;  (6)  The  testi¬ 
mony  of  scholars,  ........  115-128 


VII. — Who  Wrote  Isaiah  ? 

(1)  Analysis  of  Charge  V.  ;  (2)  The  traditional  theory;  (3)  The  testi¬ 
mony  of  the  Old  Testament ;  (4)  The  argument  from  language  ; 

(5)  The  argument  from  style ;  (6)  The  argument  from  Biblical 
theology  ;  (7)  The  historical  situation  ;  (8)  The  argument  from  the 
New  Testament :  (9)  Other  anonymous  prophecies  ;  (10)  Summary 
of  results,  ..........  128-151 


VIII.—  Progressive  Sanctification  after  Death. 

(1)  Analysis  of  Charge  VI.  ;  (2)  The  Westminster  doctrine ;  (3)  The 
Biblical  doctrine ;  (4)  The  testimony  of  the  Church  ;  (5)  The  doc¬ 
trine  of  sanctification  ;  (6)  The  salvation  of  infants  and  incapa- 
bles ;  (7)  The  redemption  of  the  heathen  ;  (8)  The  Middle  State 
attractive  ;  (9)  Incitement  to  holy  endeavor,  ,  .  .  151-182 


PRELIMINARY  REMARKS 


Mr.  Moderator,  Ministers  and  Elders  of  the  Presbytery  of 
Neiv  York. 

We  have  at  last  readied  the  stage  in  this  protracted  process 
when  the  defence  can  lawfully  be  made.  I  stand  before  a  court 
of  the  Church  where  the  same  general  principles  of  jurisprudence 
govern  the  procedure  as  those  which  are  followed  in  the  civil 
courts ;  but  where  there  are  circumstances  and  usages  which 
make  the  administration  of  justice  complex  and  difficult.  This 
court  is  not  only  a  court,  it  is  a  Presbytery,  composed  of  min¬ 
isters  and  representative  elders  within  the  city  of  New  York, 
of  the  Presbyterian  faith  and  order.  You  are  accustomed  to 
sit  as  a  deliberative  body  and  as  an  executive  body.  You  are 
not  accustomed  to  sit  as  a  judicial  body.  Therefore  there  is 
great  danger  lest  you  unconsciously  merge  your  functions  and 
duties  as  judges  in  the  more  comprehensive  and  more  familiar 
functions  and  duties  of  Presbyters.  It  will  be  necessary  for 
you  to  free  your  minds  of  every  feeling  of  party,  every  prejudice 
of  opinion,  every  anxiety  as  to  supposed  perils  to  the  Church, 
any  and  every  thing  that  might  influence  your  decision  apart 
from  the  merits  of  the  case ;  and  you  should  concentrate  your 
attention  upon  the  Charges  which  have  been  offered  for  proba¬ 
tion,  the  evidence  that  has  been  adduced  by  the  prosecution 
and  the  defence,  the  arguments  which  are  made  to  prove  and 
disprove  the  Charges,  and  the  rulings  of  the  court  itself,  and 
make  your  verdict  on  these  grounds,  and  on  these  alone.  The 
theory  of  Presbyterianism  is  that  you  are  now  sitting  as  a 
court  of  Jesus  Christ,  that  our  King  Messiah  is  present  with  us 
by  His  Spirit,  to  guide  you  in  your  decisions.  Let  me  beg  you 
to  open  your  minds  and  your  hearts  to  His  gracious  influence, 
and  so  make  an  equitable  decision  which  will  voice  your  con- 


VI 11 


PRELIMINARY  REMARKS 


scientious  convictions,  and  will  show  to  the  world  that  the  Pres¬ 
byterian  theory  is  no  mere  illusion  and  delusion,  but  an  expres¬ 
sion  of  the  experience  of  the  Church  in  reality  and  in  fact. 
The  defendant  would  welcome  the  voice  of  Jesus  Christ  even  if 
it  should  condemn  him  and  humble  him  to  the  dust,  for  the 
Master’s  decision  could  be  no  other  than  a  heavenly  discipline. 
He  declines  to  listen  to  any  other  voice  in  the  determination  of 
the  questions  now  at  issue.  You  cannot  afford  to  give  any 
other  decision  than  that  which  our  King  and  Saviour  gives. 

Let  me  first  call  your  attention  to  the  argument  of  the  prose¬ 
cution,  and  remove  from  the  case  a  mass  of  irrelevant  material 
which  has  been  introduced  into  it.  We  shall  then  be  prepared 
to  consider  the  real  case. 

Dr.  Birch  gave  you  an  opening  address  of  more  than  three 
hours’  duration.  I  listened  attentively  to  it,  and  saw  that  the 
speaker  was  honest,  sincere,  and  fervent,  and  that  he  was  labor¬ 
ing  under  the  impression  that  he  was  doing  God  service.  I 
have  read  it,  and  have  found  astonishing  exegesis,  unintelli¬ 
gent  reading  of  lexicons,  an  amusing  resort  to  heathen  oracles, 
unlimited  assertions  of  dangerous  errors  in  the  writings  of  Pro¬ 
fessor  Briggs,  but  I  cannot  find  in  it  any  serious  attempt  to 
prove  the  Charges. 

Mr.  McCook  gave  you  an  argument  of  more  than  two  hours, 
which  was  forceful,  plausible,  and  specious,  but  which  for  the 
most  part  soared  in  the  regions  of  abstract  thought,  far  above 
and  beyond  what  the  prosecution,  to  use  the  language  of  an 
eminent  member  of  the  court,  “were  put  up  to  do.”  I  listened 
to  the  argument  with  the  closest  attention.  Its  subtle  analyses 
of  hypothetical  premises,  its  simple-minded  substitution  of  in¬ 
ferences  from  the  language  of  the  defendant  for  that  language 
itself,  its  delicate  balancing  upon  imaginary  lines  stretched 
from  speculative  piers,  the  cool  assumption  of  its  logic  and  the 
condensed  heat  of  its  rhetoric,  all  remind  us  of  the  intellectual 
processes  of  a  scholastic  theologian  rather  than  of  a  lawyer  or  a 
man  of  affairs.  This  argument  will  receive  the  attention  it 
deserves. 

I.  The  prosecution,  judging  from  their  argument,  have  made 
a  very  unfortunate  mistake  in  the  selection  of  the  Charges  which 
they  submitted  for  probation.  They  tell  us  of  far  more  serious 


PRELIMINARY  REMARKS 


IX 


Charges  than  those  contained  in  the  six  Charges  they  were 
directed  to  prove.  The  Presbytery  will  remember,  in  the 
Preamble  to  the  original  Charges,  they  asserted  that  the  teach¬ 
ings  of  the  Inaugural  Address  “  respecting  miracles,  the  original 
condition  of  man,  the  nature  of  sin,  race  redemption,  and  Dr. 
Briggs’  scheme  of  Biblical  theology  in  general  are  not  in  har¬ 
mony  with  the  Scriptures  and  are  calculated  to  weaken  confi¬ 
dence  in  the  Word  of  God  and  to  encourage  presumption  on  the 
clemency  and  long-suffering  of  God and  they  also  claimed 
“  that  the  erroneous  and  ill-advised  utterances  of  Dr.  Briggs  in 
the  Inaugural  Address  have  seriously  disturbed  the  peace  of  the 
Church.”  I  objected  to  these  statements  in  my  Response  of 
November  4th,  1891,  as  follows: 

“I  object  (1)  that,  if  there  are  any  such  errors  contained  in  my  In¬ 
augural  Address  as  the  committee  allege  in  the  preamble  of  their  Report,  it 
was  their  duty  to  formulate  them  into  Charges  and  specifications  suffi¬ 
cient  in  form  and  in  legal  effect. 

“  (2)  That,  if  the  committee  did  not  think  best  so  to  do,  they  should 
have  refrained  from  alleging  doctrinal  errors  which  they  did  not  propose 
to  submit  for  probation,  and  which,  so  alleged  without  opportunity  of 
refutation,  seem  calculated  to  exert  prejudice  against  me  in  the  minds 
of  the  members  of  the  court. 

“  (3)  That,  if,  as  the  Report  alleges,  ‘the  erroneous  and  ill-advised 
utterances  of  Dr.  Briggs  in  the  Inaugural  Address  have  seriously  disturbed 
the  peace  of  the  Church,’  and  these  constitute  a  ‘grave  offence  against 
the  peace  of  the  Church,  ’  it  was  the  duty  of  the  committee  to  formulate 
this  grave  offence  into  a  Charge  and  specification,  ‘sufficient  in  form 
and  legal  effect.  ’ 

“  (4)  That,  if  it  were  not  deemed  best  so  to  do,  the  Report  should  have 
refrained  from  alleging  a  grave  offence  which  was  not  proposed  for 
probation,  the  allegation  of  which  might  prejudice  the  decision  of 
those  Charges  and  specifications  offered  for  probation  ”  (“  The  Case,  ” 
pp.  19,  20) . 

In  their  Appeal  before  the  last  General  Assembly,  the  prose¬ 
cution  objected  to  this  Response  to  the  Preamble,  on  the  ground 
that  the  “  so-called  preamble  was  no  part  of  the  said  Charges 
and  specifications,  and  was  not  served  upon  the  said  Dr.  Briggs 
as  a  portion  of  the  said  Charges  and  specifications  to  which  he 
was  cited  to  plead.”  The  General  Assembly  sustained  this 
formal  objection. 

And  now  what  do  we  see?  The  prosecution  have  wisely 


X 


PRELIMINARY  REMARKS 


refrained  from  making  any  suck  statements  in  connection 
with  the  Amended  Charges ;  but  they  renew  them  in  a  more 
offensive  and  a  more  extended  form  in  their  Argument.  Is  that 
fair?  Is  it  candid?  Is  it  honorable  thus  to  try  to  prejudice 
the  court  by  assertions  of  serious  errors  which  they  do  not  pro¬ 
pose  to  prove?  To  any  one  who  reads  with  attention  the  argu¬ 
ment  of  the  theologian  who  speaks  in  Mr.  McCook,  it  will  be 
evident  that  he  is  not  so  much  concerned  with  the  errors  named 
in  the  Charges,  as  with  other  alleged  errors  of  a  still  more 
serious  character.  It  is  not  the  Holy  Scripture  for  which  he 
is  concerned,  or  the  Westminster  Standards;  but  the  system  of 
dogma  of  his  school  of  theology,  which  he  apprehends  the 
Biblical  Theology  of  Professor  Briggs  will  surely  destroy,  unless 
the  Presbyterian  Church  can  be  persuaded  to  discredit  Professor 
Briggs.  See  how  naively  he  assumes  that  I  am  attacking  the 
citadel  of  Christianity  when  I  said  in  the  Inaugural : 

“Criticism  is  at  work  with  fire  and  knife.  Let  us  cut  down  every¬ 
thing  that  is  dead  and  harmful,  every  kind  of  dead  orthodoxy,  every 
species  of  effete  ecclesiasticism,  all  merely  formal  morality,  all  those 
dry  and  brittle  fences,  that  constitute  denominationalism,  and  are  the 
barriers  of  Church  Unity.” 

Poor  man !  Is  his  life  so  steeped  in  a  dogmatic  faith,  that 
he  knows  not  the  important  difference  between  the  three  things, 
Bible,  creed,  and  system  of  dogma?  Are  the  Bible  and  creed 
summed  up  to  him  in  the  scholastic  forms  of  a  system  of 
dogma?  I  pointed  out  this  difference  in  the  letter  of  acceptance 
of  the  Edward  Robinson  Chair,  which  I  read  in  evidence,  but 
he  ignores  it.  Those  things  which  are  to  me  dead  orthodoxy, 
effete  ecclesiasticism,  formal  morality,  denominationalism,  are 
to  him  Presbyterianism  and  Christianity.  He  doubtless  agrees 
with  a  recently  uttered  opinion,  that  “  Dogma  is  more  impor¬ 
tant  than  religious  experience,”  and  if  he  were  forced  to  choose 
would  deliberately  choose  dogma  rather  than  Christian  life. 

I  shall  not  take  the  time  of  the  judicatory  by  calling  atten¬ 
tion  to  the  insinuations  and  statements  of  larger  errors  which 
pervade  the  argument  of  Mr.  McCook,  but  your  attention  is 
called  to  the  closing  section  of  that  argument,  in  which  an 
attempt  is  made  to  explain  all  the  errors  imputed  to  the  defen- 


PRELIMINARY  REMARKS 


XI 


dant  by  the  root  error  of  Naturalism,  which  it  is  said  “  in  the 
hands  of  a  more  logical  writer  than  Professor  Briggs,  would  be 
pushed  to  far  more  radical  conclusions  .  .  .  and  will  soon  leave 
you  about  as  much  exclusiveness  as  Christians,  in  having  the 
oracles  of  God,  as  Mahometans  or  Brahmins  have”  (p.  46). 

If  the  prosecution  are  serious  in  this  statement  of  the  case, 
they  are  convicted  out  of  their  own  mouth  of  gross  neglect  of 
duty.  If  they  have  here  struck  at  the  root  of  all  the  errors  of 
Dr.  Briggs,  they  certainly  ought  to  have  put  it  in  a  Charge. 
If  they  made  a  mistake  in  the  formulation  of  the  original 
Charges,  why  did  they  not  confess  their  mistake,  abandon  the 
old  case,  and  bring  in  new  Charges  under  a  new  case?  That 
would  have  been  honest,  that  would  have  been  manly,  that 
would  have  been  welcomed  by  the  defendant  and  all  honorable 
men.  But  to  bring  such  a  serious  accusation  into  an  argument 
to  prove  other  Charges,  which  have  been  recognized  as  suffi¬ 
cient  for  probation,  is  to  wrong  the  defendant  and  to  presume 
upon  the  patience  and  indulgence  of  the  court.  This  new 
charge  is  utterly  and  absolutely  false.  It  was  forged  in  the 
brain  of  its  author.  It  was  invented  in  a  diseased  mind.  You 
have  no  right  as  a  court  to  consider  it.  The  laws  of  evidence 
in  all  courts,  civil  and  ecclesiastical,  require  you  to  blot  out 
from  the  argument  any  and  every  reference  to  other  imputed 
errors  than  those  alleged  in  the  Charges.  These  and  these  alone 
the  prosecution  were  entitled  to  prove. 

II.  In  my  Preliminary  Objections  I  called  the  attention  of 
the  Presbytery  to  the  fact  that  the  evidences  from  Holy  Scrip¬ 
ture  and  the  Standards  had  all  been  placed  under  the  specifica¬ 
tions  and  so  directed  against  the  passages  cited  from  the 
Inaugural;  when,  by  the  law  of  the  Church,  they  ought  to  have 
been  put  under  the  Charges  and  used  solely  and  alone  to  prove 
that  the  doctrines  claimed  to  be  essential  doctrines  of  the 
Standards  and  of  Holy  Scripture  were  really  and  truly  such. 
You  sustained  this  objection  and  directed  the  prosecution  to 
transfer  all  their  proofs  from  Holy  Scripture  and  the  Standards 
from  the  specifications  to  the  Charges.  The  prosecution  have 
in  a  most  flagrant  manner  disobeyed  your  instructions.  In  the 
argument  of  Dr.  Birch  he  used  the  passages  of  Holy  Scripture 
and  the  Standards  for  the  very  purpose  you  ruled  he  should  not 


Xll 


PRELIMINARY  REMARKS 


use  them ;  for  he  used  them  to  show  that  his  interpretations  of 
the  utterances  of  the  Inaugural  were  dangerous  errors ;  but  he 
neglected  to  use  them  for  the  purpose  you  directed  him  to  use 
them,  namely,  to  prove  that  there  are  essential  doctrines  of  the 
Holy  Scripture  and  the  Standards  of  our  Church,  which  the 
alleged  errors  of  Dr.  Briggs  contravene.  So  far  as  the  argument 
of  Mr.  McCook  is  concerned,  Holy  Scripture  is  conspicuous  by 
its  absence;  and  what  need  has  speculative  dogma  of  the  West¬ 
minster  Standards? 

The  prosecution  by  this  procedure  have  put  themselves  in 
these  awkward  circumstances. 

(1)  They  have  used  Scripture  and  Confession  in  a  way  it  was 
ruled  by  the  court  they  should  not  use  it.  Therefore  their  entire 
argument  on  Holy  Scripture  and  all  of  their  argument  from 
the  Standards  with  a  very  few  exceptions  should  be  ruled  out 
of  court.  The  argument  of  Dr.  Birch  thus  shrivels  up  into 
nothingness.  What  he  tried  to  prove  he  had  no  right  to  prove; 
and  according  to  the  ruling  of  this  court  you  cannot  consider  it. 

(2)  By  neglecting  to  use  Scripture  and  Confession  to  prove 
that  the  doctrines  alleged  to  be  essential  and  necessary  articles 
of  the  Confession  are  truly  such,  these  essential  doctrines  are 
not  proven,  and  if  they  are  left  destitute  of  proof,  the  essential 
premises  of  the  Charges  are  unproven,  and  the  prosecution  have 
no  case.  You  have  made  your  ruling,  and  if  you  follow  it,  as 
you  must  if  you  do  your  duty  as  judges,  you  must  throw  all 
the  Charges  out  of  court  as  unproven  in  their  chief  premises. 

(3)  The  prosecution  are  guilty  of  contempt  of  court,  for  dis¬ 
regarding  the  ruling  of  the  court.  The  court  should  recognize 
in  some  proper  way  this  offence  against  its  dignity. 

III.  After  listening  to  the  Preliminary  Objections  of  the 
defendant,  the  court  directed  the  prosecuting  committee  to  strike 
out  Charges  IV.  and  VII.  Dr.  Birch  obeyed  the  direction  of 
the  Presbytery  and  made  no  argument  upon  these  Charges. 
But  Mr.  McCook  disobeyed  the  direction  of  the  Presbytery  and 
made  elaborate  arguments  in  proof  of  both  of  these  Charges. 
This  must  be  evident  to  most  of  those  who  heard  the  argument. 
I  shall  now  try  to  make  it  evident  to  every  member  of  the  court. 

Turn  to  page  27  of  the  Argument  of  Mr.  McCook  in  the  fifth 
line  from  the  bottom,  and  you  will  find  the  beginning  of  the 


PRELIMINARY  REMARKS 


Xlll 


argument  on  the  fourth  Charge  which  you  ordered  stricken 
out.  It  reads  as  follows : 

“  Professor  Briggs  lias  said  :  ‘  Kueuen  lias  shown  that  if  we  insist  upon 
the  fulfilment  of  the  details  of  the  predictive  prophecy  of  the  Old  Testa¬ 
ment,  many  of  the  predictions  have  been  reversed  by  history  ;  and  the 
great  body  of  the  Messianic  prediction  has  not  only  never  been  fulfilled, 
but  cannot  now  be  fulfilled,  for  the  reason  that  its  own  time  lias  passed 
forever.  ’  ” 

Thus  he  begins  with  the  citation  from  the  Inaugural,  and  in¬ 
deed  the  only  one  given  under  the  fourth  Charge.  The  argument 
of  Mr.  McCook  on  the  fourth  Charge  continues  through  pages  28 
and  29  as  far  as  the  middle  of  page  30.  On  the  second  line  from 
the  bottom  of  page  28,  Mr.  McCook  says : 

•‘He  [Professor  Briggs]  still  holds  to  predictive  prophecy,  but  he  says, 
of  Messianic  prophecy,  that  a  large  part  of  it  not  only  lias  not  been  ful¬ 
filled,  but  that  from  the  nature  of  the  case  it  can  never  be  fulfilled.” 

This  is  a  renewal  of  the  false  and  slanderous  imputation 
made  in  the  rejected  Charge  IV.,  which  I  have  again  and  again 
repudiated,  and  which  j^ou  required  them  to  strike  out,  in  the 
interest  of  justice. 

On  page  30  Mr.  McCook  says : 

“  But  whether  it  be  scholastic  or  whether  it  be  critical — to  deny  the 
fulfilment  of  the  divine  prediction  is  to  deny  that  the  prophecy  is  true, 
for  it  must  be  either  true  or  false.  To  deny  the  fulfilment  of  prophecy 
is  to  deny  that  God  is  faithful  to  His  promises  or  His  declarations  of 
judgment.  It  is  to  deny  that  God  is  a  God  of  Truth.” 

Here  Mr.  McCook  shows  that  he  is  endeavoring  to  bring  the 
teaching  falsely  attributed  to  me  into  conflict  with  the  truth¬ 
fulness  of  God,  the  very  contradiction  which  is  stated  in  the 
rejected  Charge  IV.  and  which  does  not  appear  in  Charge  III., 
or  in  any  other  of  the  Charges  approved  by  the  Presbytery  as 
sufficient. 

On  page  28  Mr.  McCook  says : 

‘‘Here  once  more  we  are  forced  into  the  apparently  illogical  position 
of  using  Scripture  as  an  argument  against  one  who  denies  the  inerrancy 
of  Scripture.  But  as  it  is  the  principle  of  our  Church,  that  the  Holy 
Scriptures  are  infallible,  the  argument  must  appeal  to  all  those  who 
have  not  lost  their  confidence  in  the  Word  of  God.” 


X1Y 


PRELIMINARY  REMARKS 


But  “  once  more”  has  no  propriety  in  this  place.  There  is 
nothing  in  the  previous  context  to  which  it  can  refer.  It  refers 
back  to  two  statements  on  page  32,  the  last  of  which  begins  with 
the  sentence,  “  But  of  what  use  is  such  an  argument  to  those 
who,  like  Professor  Briggs,  deny  the  inerrancy  of  the  Scrip¬ 
ture?”  which  thus  appears  to  have  originally  preceded  page 
28.  This  shows  that  the  entire  section  relating  to  prediction 
has  been  transferred  from  its  original  position  in  the  argument 
after  page  33  to  its  present  position,  pp.  27-30. 

Turn  again  to  page  27  and  you  will  see  that  the  argument 
upon  inerrancy  fortified  by  the  illustrations  from  the  cracked 
mirror  and  the  spot  on  the  Parthenon  come  to  a  sudden  and 
unexpected  close  with  the  sentence : 

“When  I  say  that  a  document  is  infallible,  I  mean  that  it  is  without 
error,  so  that  if  I  claim  that  I  have  found  an  error,  unless  I  can  give  up 
the  error,  I  must  in  so  far  give  up  the  infallibility  of  the  document. 
That  is  very  different  from  saying  that  the  whole  of  the  document  is 
untrue.” 

< 

The  reference  to  predictive  prophecy  which  follows,  pp.  27-30, 
breaks  into  the  argument  abruptly.  You  will  find  its  original 
continuation,  if  I  mistake  not,  on  page  30,  where  the  argument 
on  inerrancy  is  resumed : 

“Well,  then,  suppose  we  admit  that  the  inspiration  extends  to,  and  the 
inerrancy  covers,  only  that  part  of  the  teaching  which  has  to  do  with 
faith,  and  practice,”  and  so  on. 

It  is  plain  that  the  argument  on  the  fourth  Charge  has  been 
transposed  from  its  original  position  in  the  paper  and  inserted 
in  the  midst  of  the  argument  on  the  third  Charge. 

An  argument  on  the  seventh  Charge  has  also  been  made  by 
Mr.  McCook.  Turn  to  page  38  and  you  will  see  that  the  argu¬ 
ment  from  page  38  through  the  ninth  line  of  page  42  is  on  the 
seventh  Charge,  which  you  required  the  prosecution  to  throw 
out  of  their  Charges.  The  only  changes  which  have  been 
made  so  far  as  I  have  observed  are  that  the  introductory 
reference  to  the  old  eighth  Charge  has  been  transposed  and 
placed  before  the  argument  on  the  rejected  seventh  Charge,  and 
the  connection  has  been  made  by  the  insertion  of  a  sentence 
which  by  some  act  of  carelessness  seems  to  be  in  the  wrong 


PRELIMINARY  REMARKS 


XV 


place;  for  it  is  manifest  that  no  writer  with  a  logical  mind 
or  a  rhetorical  experience  could  ever  write : 

“  Professor  Briggs  affirms  that  the  word  ‘redemption’  includes  the  ‘  whole 
process  of  grace.’  It  comprehends  regeneration,  justification,  repent¬ 
ance,  faith,  sanctification  and  glorification 

and  then  go  on  to  say : 

“Now,  the  real  meaning  of  the  doctrine  of  progressive  sanctification 
cannot  be  fully  understood  without  taking  into  consideration  Professor 
Briggs’  doctrine  of  redemption,  of  which  sanctification  is  a  part.” 

If  these  sentences  had  been  written  in  connection,  at  the 
same  time,  by  any  respectable  writer,  they  would  have  been 
transposed.  The  three  words,  “To  do  this,”  at  the  beginning 
of  the  next  sentence,  put  in  apparently  in  order  to  make  a  con¬ 
nection  with  the  previous  clause,  do  not  conceal  the  original 
connection  of  this  sentence  with  the  clause  before  the  last. 

If  it  were  necessary  I  could  show  you  traces  of  the  use  of  the 
rejected  Charges  IV.  and  VII.  at  several  points  in  the  subse¬ 
quent  argument.  But  it  is  sufficient.  Mr.  McCook  has  argued 
elaborately  upon  the  rejected  Charges  IV.  and  VII.  which  you 
directed  the  prosecution  to  remove  from  the  Amended  Charges. 
He  has  not  introduced  these  arguments  in  an  ingenious  or  an 
ingenuous  way.  It  looks  like  a  hasty  use  of  scissors  and  paste 
and  a  determination  to  get  in  this  argument  on  the  Charges 
that  were  thrown  out,  in  spite  of  the  Presbytery.  Your  atten¬ 
tion  was  called  to  this  violation  of  your  ruling  during  the 
delivery  of  the  argument  of  Mr.  McCook.  It  was  detected  by 
the  defendant  so  soon  as  he  began  it.  But  the  defendant 
decided  to  do  no  more  at  that  time  than  object  to  it.  Mr. 
McCook  has  succeeded.  His  argument  on  the  rejected  Charges 
IV.  and  VII.  is  all  in.  It  goes  up  on  the  records  to  the 
higher  courts,  to  strengthen  his  exception  against  your  decision 
to  rule  them  out.  The  defendant,  in  his  Preliminary  Objections, 
called  your  attention  to  the  errors  in  law  and  equity  in  allowing 
the  prosecution  to  make  such  Charges  and  press  them  for 
probation.  You  recognized  his  objection  as  valid,  and  you  put 
your  shield  over  him  to  protect  him  from  this  unkind  and  dis¬ 
courteous  action  of  the  prosecution.  But  your  shield  has 


XVI 


PRELIMINARY  REMARKS 


been  pushed  aside.  Your  protection  has  been  scorned.  Your 
ruling  has  been  trampled  under  foot.  The  defendant  has  been 
again  attacked  in  your  presence  with  these  slanderous  accusa¬ 
tions;  and  Mr.  McCook  is  triumphant. 

IY.  The  prosecution  seem  very  zealous  for  the  Standards 
of  the  Presbyterian  Church.  We  shall  show  further  on  that 
their  zeal  is  “without  knowledge.”  But  at  the  present  time 
I  desire  to  call  your  attention  to  the  fact  that  their  zeal  is  not 
“the  fire  of  the  sanctuary.”  There  are  many  references  to  the 
Standards  of  our  Church  under  the  printed  specifications. 
These  were,  by  your  order,  transferred  from  the  specifications 
to  the  Charges,  and  the  prosecution  were  directed  to  prove  by 
them  that  the  doctrines  asserted  to  be  essential  doctrines  of  the 
Westminster  Standards  were  indeed  and  in  truth  such  essential 
doctrines.  But  every  attentive  hearer  or  reader  of  the  argu¬ 
ment  of  the  prosecution  must  have  observed  how  lightly  they 
tripped  over  the  proofs  from  the  Standards. 

Let  me  call  the  attention  of  the  court  to  the  fact  that  the 
prosecution  have  made  no  attempt  to  prove  these  so-called 
essential  doctrines  of  our  Standards.  They  use  the  adjective 
“  essential”  in  the  printed  Charges,  but,  judging  from  the  argu¬ 
ment,  this  adjective  is  a  mere  appendage,  without  meaning 
to  them  and  without  use  to  them.  Dr.  Birch  in  his  argument 
made  no  use  of  any  of  the  passages  from  the  Larger  and 
Shorter  Catechisms  given  under  the  Charges.  He  made  no  use 
of  Chapter  I.,  sections  5,  6,  and  10,  under  the  first  Charge,  and 
no  use  whatever  of  any  passages  from  the  Standards  under 
Charges  IY.,  Y.,  and  YI.  I  therefore  ask  the  court  to  note  the 
omissions  of  proof  under  Charge  I.  and  to  strike  out  Charges 
IY.,  Y.,  and  YI.,  altogether,  as  entirely  destitute  of  evidence 
that  any  essential  doctrine  of  our  Standards  is  contravened. 

But  some  of  you  may  ask,  Did  not  the  ingenious  Mr. 
McCook  notice  this  serious  gap  in  the  argument  and  fill  it  up? 
It  is  possibly  surprising  to  some  of  you.  But  in  fact  he  did 
not.  No  use  of  passages  from  the  Standards  was  made  in  his 
brief  argument  under  Charges  I Y.  and  Y. ,  and  under  the  last 
Charge,  the  only  use  of  the  Standards  was  this  assertion 
entirely  destitute  of  proof :  “  On  this  point  the  Standards  of 
the  Church  teach  a  directly  contradictory  doctrine,  the  Shorter 


PRELIMINARY  REMARKS 


XY11 


Catechism  being  especially  strong  (Ques.  37),  using  first  the 
expression  ‘at  ’  their  death,  and  second,  the  word  ‘immedi¬ 
ately  ’  ”(p.  42). 

Under  such  circumstances  there  is  only  one  thing  for  this 
court  to  do.  The  prosecution  have  made  no  case  against  me 
under  charges  IV.,  V.,  and  VI.,  and  you  should  rule  them  out 
of  court.  In  any  civil  court  this  would  he  the  procedure.  In  an 
ecclesiastical  court,  which  should  follow  law  and  equity,  such  a 
course  becomes  imperative. 

V.  In  the  argument  of  Mr.  McCook  the  changes  were  rung 
upon  “  contradictory  statements,”  “  flat  contradictions,”  “  retrac¬ 
tion,”  and  the  like.  These  phrases  have  become  familiar  to  us 
during  the  past  months,  through  reading  of  the  New  York  “  Ob¬ 
server.  ”  Whether  propositions  are  contradictory  or  not  depends 
somewhat  upon  the  angles  of  vision.  Two  parts  of  a  straight 
line  may  be  in  opposition  to  some  diseased  eyes.  If  from  any 
given  point  on  a  straight  line  slight  deviations  are  made  to  the 
right  and  the  left,  these  deviations  at  once  become  opposites. 
A  logician  balancing  upon  an  imaginary  line,  looking  now  on 
the  right  hand  and  then  on  the  left,  will  see  flat  contradictions. 
An  author  and  a  teacher  has  the  right  to  explain  himself,  and 
he  is  not  to  be  regarded  as  contradictory  or  as  inconsistent 
simply  because  an  enemy  says  so. 

Mr.  McCook  calls  your  attention  to  the  fact  that  I  have  not 
“  retracted”  any  statement  in  the  Inaugural  Address.  But  why 
should  I  do  so?  No  one  has  yet  been  able  to  show  that  any 
statement  made  in  the  Address  is  erroneous.  When  it  is  clear 
that  I  was  wrong,  I  will  confess  it  and  retract — not  before. 

I  put  in  evidence  extracts  from  my  writings  beginning  with 
my  first  Inaugural  Address  in  1876,  and  closing  with  my 
lectures  on  “The  Bible,  the  Church,  and  the  Reason,”  in  1891. 
It  is  not  necessary  to  read  this  evidence  again.  You  have 
heard  it  or  you  have  read  it,  and  you  will  again  have  an  oppor¬ 
tunity  to  read  it  in  the  printed  form.  It  was  presented  in  order 
to  show  you  what  my  views  have  really  been  during  the  whole 
period  of  my  teaching  in  the  Union  Theological  Seminary.  In 
the  first  Inaugural,  the  platform  of  my  teaching  was  laid,  upon 
which  I  have  stood  through  all  these  years.  My  views  of  the 
Bible,  of  Biblical  Theology,  and  of  the  Higher  Criticism  have 


XV111 


PRELIMINARY  REMARKS 


remained  unchanged  in  essence.  They  have  become  more 
mature.  That  is  all.  The  opinions  assailed  in  the  Charges  III. , 
IV.,  and  V.  were  repeatedly  expressed  in  the  “Presbyterian 
Review  ”  during  the  ten  years  in  which  I  acted  as  its  editor  in 
association  with  Drs.  A.  A.  Hodge  and  F.  L.  Patton.  The 
views  assailed  in  Charge  VI.  had  been  before  the  public  for 
some  time  as  I  have  shown  by  extracts  from  “  Whither?”  and  the 
article  “Redemption  after  Death.”  The  only  Charges  with 
regard  to  which  it  can  he  said  with  any  propriety  that  they 
charge  me  with  doctrines  which  I  had  not  taught  prior  to  the 
delivery  of  the  Inaugural,  are  those  respecting  the  two  great 
fountains  of  divine  authority  in  religion — the  Church  and  the 
Reason ;  and  yet  I  have  shown  you  by  extracts  from  “  Biblical 
Study”  and  from  “  Whither?”  that  these  were  also  before  the  pub¬ 
lic  in  those  earlier  publications  in  a  less  mature  form  but  no  less 
truly  in  substance.  The  Inaugural  Address  was  simply  a  con¬ 
centration  of  opinions  expressed  more  at  length  in  other  places 
and  under  other  circumstances.  The  defendant  is  altogether 
unconscious  of  any  substantial  change  of  opinion  on  the  sub¬ 
ject-matters  of  the  Charges  for  many  years. 

There  are  several  statements  in  the  conclusion  of  Mr. 
McCook’s  argument  which  are  some  of  them  gratuitous 
assumptions,  others  of  them  almost  ludicrous. 

What  members  of  this  court  can  be  misled  by  the  statement 
that  “you  do  approve  of”  the  defendant’s  teaching  “if  you  vote 
for  an  acquittal?”  That  is  not  the  question  before  you.  The 
question  is,  whether  the  Charges  are  true  or  false,  whether 
the  defendant  has  taught  the  doctrines  alleged  in  the  Charges, 
and  whether,  if  he  has,  these  doctrines  conflict  with  the  essen¬ 
tial  doctrines  of  the  Standards  named  in  the  Charges.  You 
may  disapprove  of  his  teaching  altogether,  and  yet  you  can  do 
no  other  than  pronounce  him  innocent  so  far  as  any  case  that 
the  prosecution  has  made  against  him. 

It  is  intimated  that  my  teaching  is  beyond  the  limits  of  tol¬ 
eration.  It  will  be  time  enough  for  the  prosecution  to  talk 
about  toleration  after  they  have  proved  their  Charges.  The 
defendant  has  not  asked  for  toleration.  He  claims  his  rights 
under  the  constitution  of  his  Church  to  teach  anything  and 
everything  that  he  has  ever  taught.  Mr.  McCook  uses  an 


PRELIMINARY  REMARKS 


XIX 


ambiguous  expression  when  he  says  “that  men  should  be 
required  either  to  abide  by  our  doctrines  or  else  submit  to  the 
decisions  of  our  courts.”  “Our  doctrines”  are  not  the  tests  of 
orthodoxy  if  this  means  what  I  take  it  to  mean,  the  doctrines 
of  the  school  of  theology  to  which  the  prosecution  belong. 
The  Westminster  Standards  and  Holy  Scripture  give  the  doc¬ 
trines  by  which  I  am  required  to  abide  and  by  which  I  shall 
abide  so  long  as  I  remain  a  minister  of  the  Presbyterian 
Church.  The  defendant  asks  no  favors  of  the  court.  He  asks 
that  they  try  him  strictly  by  the  Standards  and  the  Constitu¬ 
tion  of  the  Church. 

What  shall  we  say  of  these  prosecutors  who,  to  say  the  least, 
are  no  friends  of  Union  Theological  Seminary,  taking  upon 
their  lips  the  names  of  my  revered  teachers  and  friends,  Edward 
Robinson,  Henry  B.  Smith,  and  William  Adams?  It  is  one  of 
the  mysteries  of  human  life  that  some  minds  may  come  in 
contact  with  the  masters  of  Christian  thought  without  under¬ 
standing  them  or  learning  from  them.  The  best  exp]anation 
of  it  that  I  know  of  is  given  in  the  words  of  an  ancient  Hindu 
poet: 

“  The  mind  alike 

Vigorous  or  weak  is  capable  of  culture, 

But  still  bears  fruit  according  to  its  nature. 

’Tis  not  the  teacher’s  skill  that  rears  the  scholar. 

The  sparkling  gem  gives  back  the  glorious  radiance 
It  drinks  from  other  light,  but  the  dull  earth 
Absorbs  the  blaze  and  yields  no  gleam  again.” 

(Professor  Wilson — Hindu  Theatre,  Bhavabluti. ) 

I  have  stripped  from  the  argument  of  the  prosecution  its 
irrelevant  material.  And  what  is  left?  Nothing  substantial ! 
If  this  were  a  civil  court  I  would  now  ask  you  to  dismiss  the 
case,  because  it  has  not  been  shown  that  there  is  a  case.  But  as  I 
understand  our  Book  of  Discipline,  we  cannot  take  this  action 
in  the  present  stage  of  the  process.  If  this  were  a  court  of  last* 
resort  and  your  decision  could  be  final,  I  would  submit  the  case 
to  you  without  further  argument,  in  the  conviction  that  this 
intelligent  court  could  not  vote  me  guilty  on  the  evidence 
adduced  or  the  arguments  made  by  the  prosecution.  But  it 
must  be  plain  to  you  all  that  the  prosecution  have  no  such  idea. 


XX 


PRELIMINARY  REMARKS 


They  claim  to  represent  the  Presbyterian  Church  in  the  United 
States  of  America.  The  whole  procedure  in  this  court  shows 
that  they  are  making  up  a  case  for  a  higher  court.  Therefore 
it  is  necessary  for  me  to  make  my  argument  upon  the  merits 
of  the  case. 


THE  DEFENCE  OF  PROFESSOR  BRIGGS  BEFORE 
THE  PRESBYTERY  OF  NEW  YORK. 


i 

THE  RULE  OF  FAITH 

Mr.  Moderator ,  Ministers,  and  Elders  of  the  Presbytery  of 
New  York: 

I  shall  endeavor  to  make  my  defence  against  the  Charges 
alleged  against  me ;  but  it  is  first  necessary  to  consider  several 
preliminary  principles  which  regulate  all  trials  for  heresy  in 
the  Presbyterian  Church  of  the  United  States  of  America, 
which  have  been  entirely  disregarded  by  the  prosecution  in 
their  arguments  upon  the  Amended  Charges  and  specifications. 

Presbyterian  law  requires  that  the  Charges  should  set  forth 
that  certain  teachings  are  in  irreconcilable  conflict  with  certain 
doctrines  which  are  essential  and  necessary  to  the  Westminster 
Standards  and  Holy  Scripture. 

It  is  not  sufficient  for  the  prosecution  to  assert  that  a  doctrine 
is  an  essential  doctrine  of  Holy  Scripture  and  the  Confession  of 
Faith.  They  are  required  to  prove  their  statement  by  passages 
from  Holy  Scripture  and  the  Confession  of  Faith,  interpreted 
by  strict  historical  and  grammatical  exegesis.  They  have  to 
convince  you,  and  every  other  court  to  which  the  case  may  be 
appealed,  by  argument  which  cannot  be  gainsayed,  that  these 
doctrines  are  essential  to  the  Westminster  system. 

7. — Dangerous  Errors 

It  is  not  sufficient  to  maintain  and  try  to  prove  that  Dr. 

Briggs  teaches  dangerous  errors.  It  is  conceivable  that  a  man 

1 


2 


THE  DEFENCE  OF  PROFESSOR  BRIGGS 


might  hold  dangerous  errors,  and  that  this  could  be  proven  by 
conclusive  arguments,  and  yet  such  errors  might  not  be  an 
offence  to  be  condemned  by  a  Presbytery. 

E.g.  (a)  One  of  our  ministers  might  hold  that  our  republican 
form  of  government  is  radically  inconsistent  with  the  Biblical 
doctrine  of  the  divine  right  of  kings.  He  might  make  himself 
very  offensive  to  his  people  and  to  us  by  teaching  this  Tory 
doctrine  of  the  eighteenth  century,  and  yet  we  could  not  prove 
that  he  was  guilty  of  heresy  or  immorality  under  the  constitu¬ 
tion  of  the  Presbyterian  Church  for  teaching  this  doctrine, 
because  you  could  not  put  in  a  definite  charge  any  essential 
doctrine  of  the  Westminster  Confession  with  which  this  opinion 
is  in  conflict. 

(b)  An  elder  might  maintain,  as  it  used  to  be  maintained  by 
many  in  the  northern  Presbyterian  Church  and  as  it  is  at  pres¬ 
ent  maintained  by  some  in  the  southern  Presbyterian  Church, 
that  slavery  is  a  divine  institution.  Such  a  doctrine  would  be 
very  offensive  in  this  community.  But  could  you  convict  an 
elder  for  holding  it  and  teaching  it?  Could  you  frame  a  defi¬ 
nite  charge  and  assert  an  essential  doctrine  of  the  Confession 
with  which  this  doctrine  would  be  in  conflict? 

There  are  many  new  questions  in  religion,  doctrine,  and 
morals  which  the  Church  has  not  defined  and  where  the  guidance 
of  Holy  Scripture  is  as  yet  not  altogether  clear,  about  which  men 
in  our  time  differ  widely,  differ  seriously,  differ  in  some  cases  in 
passion  and  bitterness.  But  these  questions  cannot  lawfully 
come  under  the  forms  of  ecclesiastical  process  in  our  courts, 
because  our  constitution  has  not  yet  determined  them.  It  may 
be  that  the  Presbyterian  Church  will  have  to  define  some  of 
these  questions,  and  it  may  be  necessary  to  divide  the  denom¬ 
inations  of  Christians  now  existing  and  to  organize  new  denom¬ 
inations  distinguished  by  their  attitudes  toward  these  questions. 
But  the  Presbyterian  Church  cannot  by  a  majority  vote  in 
Presbytery,  Synod,  or  General  Assembly  determine  any  such 
questions  except  in  the  forms  of  our  constitution,  by  a  revision 
of  the  Confession  after  full  deliberation,  bv  the  vote  of  two- 
thirds  of  the  Presbyteries.  The  Inaugural  Address  may  con¬ 
tain  ten  or  twenty  dangerous  errors  in  the  opinion  of  some  of 
you,  but  that  is  not  the  question  which  as  jurors  3’ou  have  to 


THE  RULE  OF  FAITH 


O 

O 


decide.  If  such  dangerous  errors  are  not  in  irreconcilable  con¬ 
flict  with  essential  and  necessary  articles  of  the  Westminster 
Confession,  you  have  no  constitutional  right  to  deal  with  them 
in  this  Presbytery  in  the  forms  of  ecclesiastical  process.  The 
only  thing  you  can  do  lawfully  is  to  overture  the  General 
Assembly  to  amend  the  Confession  of  Faith  so  as  to  exclude 
the  dangerous  opinions  of  Dr.  Briggs.  If  you  should  succeed 
in  such  revision  and  bring  about  such  a  decision  in  a  legal 
manner,  he  would  use  his  right  of  protest  and  then  retire  from 
the  Presbytery  and  not  wait  for  a  judicial  decision  of  his  case. 
This  principle  is  of  vast  importance.  But  it  has  been  entirely 
disregarded  by  the  prosecution  in  the  Amended  Charges  and  in 
their  argument  upon  them.  Even  if  it  be  true  that  my  teach¬ 
ings  contravene  the  seven  doctrines  of  the  Confession  specified 
in  the  Amended  Charges,  of  not  more  than  one  of  them  could 
it  be  said  that  they  are  dangerous  errors  in  the  sense  that  they 
contravene  essential  doctrines  of  our  Standards. 

II. — Double  Rule  of  Faith 

The  Presbyterian  Church  in  the  United  States  of  America 
has  a  double  standard,  a  double  rule  of  faith.  It  affirms  that 
Holy  Scripture  is  the  only  infallible  rule  of  faith  and  practice. 
But  it  also  declares  that  the  Westminster  Confession  and  Cate¬ 
chisms  constitute  the  official  rule  of  faith  in  the  Presbyterian 
Church.  At  our  ordination  we  say  yes,  to  the  question  “Do 
you  sincerely  receive  and  adopt  the  Confession  of  Faith  of  this 
Church,  as  containing  the  system  of  doctrine  taught  in  the 
Holy  Scriptures?  ”  From  this  double  rule  of  faith  these  conse¬ 
quences  necessarily  spring. 

(1)  The  ecclesiastical  rule  of  faith,  the  Confession,  and  the 
Catechisms  must  yield  to  the  divine  rule  of  faith,  Holy  Scrip¬ 
ture.  (a)  If,  therefore,  the  ecclesiastical  rule  make  any  state¬ 
ment  that  is  not  in  harmony  with  the  Holy  Scripture,  such 
statement  cannot  be  binding ;  e.g.,  “  Tolerating  a  false  religion  ” 
is  represented  to  be  a  sin  forbidden  in  the  second  command¬ 
ment,  according  to  the  original  edition  of  the  Larger  Cate¬ 
chism.  This  statement  was  stricken  out  by  the  men  of  the 
American  revolution  as  unscriptural.  But  before  it  was  stricken 


4 


THE  DEFENCE  OF  PROFESSOR  BRIGGS 


out  it  was  not  regarded  as  binding  because  it  was  always  recog¬ 
nized  by  the  American  fathers  of  the  eighteenth  century  as  not 
in  harmony  with  Holy  Scripture.  There  are  other  clauses  re¬ 
maining  in  the  Confession  and  Catechisms  of  a  similar  charac- 
’  ter,  some  of  which  the  revision  movement  now  in  progress  is 
aiming  to  remove,  (b)  If  the  ecclesiastical  rule  make  any 
statement  which  cannot  be  sustained  by  evidence  from  Holy 
Scripture,  it  is  not  valid  in  law,  because  the  Westminster 
standards  profess  to  set  forth  doctrines  which  are  given  in 
Holy  Scripture  and  those  doctrines  alone.  It  is  not  sufficient, 
therefore,  to  show  that  a  doctrine  is  in  opposition  to  a  statement 
of  the  Confession  and  Catechisms.  It  is  also  necessary  to  show 
that  it  is  against  Holy  Scripture;  c.g.,  the  statement  in  the 
Confession  XXV.,  6: 

“Nor  can  the  pope  of  Rome  in  any  sense  be  head  thereof,  but  is  that 
antichrist,  that  man  of  sin,  and  son  of  perdition,  that  exalteth  himself 
in  the  church  against  Christ  and  all  that  is  called  God.” 

This  cannot  be  regarded  as  a  binding  statement  because  it  is 
evident  from  the  consensus  of  exegetical  scholars  that  it  rests 
upon  a  misinterpretation  of  Holy  Scripture;  and  therefore 
every  true  Presbyterian  is  bound  by  his  vows  of  subscription  to 
eliminate  this  statement  from  his  creed,  and  to  follow  Holy 
Scripture  rather  than  the  Confession.  There  arise  many  cases 
of  difficulty  under  this  head,  but  these  may  all  be  solved  in  a 
constitutional  manner  by  the  forms  of  law  in  the  Presbyterian 
Church.  It  is  undoubtedly  true  that  in  most  instances  of 
heresy  the  heretics  will  claim  that  they  have  the  Scriptures  as 
their  authority  over  against  the  Confession  of  Faith.  But 
every  case  will  have  to  be  decided  on  its  merits,  and  the  prin¬ 
ciple  is  a  plain  one.  If  a  man  differ  from  the  Confession  in  an 
unessential  matter,  and  claim  that  the  Scripture  sustains  him 
against  the  Confession,  he  is  within  his  rights  if  he  maintain 
his  position  in  the  Church  without  making  an  issue.  If,  how¬ 
ever,  he  differ  from  the  Confession  in  an  essential  and  necessary 
article  and  claim  that  the  Scripture  sustains  him,  he  is  bound 
to  call  the  attention  of  the  Presbytery  to  this  difference  and  ask 
their  decision.  The  Presbytery  in  every  case,  when  its  atten¬ 
tion  is  called  to  the  difference,  has  the  right  of  decision  subject 


THE  RULE  OF  FAITH 


5 


to  appeal.  But  the  decision  by  the  Presbytery  must  rest  upon 
this  principle,  that  nothing  shall  be  demanded  of  any  one  as  an 
article  of  faith  which  cannot  be  proven  in  the  express  language 
of  Holy  Scripture.  This  is  the  law  of  an  offence  on  the  positive 
and  negative  sides. 

“  An  offence  is  anything,  in  the  doctrine,  principles,  or  practice  of  a 
church  member,  officer,  or  judicatory,  which  is  contrary  to  the  Word  of 
God  ;  or  which,  if  it  be  not  in  its  own  nature  sinful,  may  tempt  others  to 
sin,  or  mar  their  spiritual  edification  (3) . 

“Nothing  shall,  therefore,  be  the  object  of  judicial  process,  which  can¬ 
not  be  proven  to  be  contrary  to  the  Holy  Scriptures,  or  to  the  regula¬ 
tions  and  practice  of  the  Church  founded  thereon  ;  nor  anything  which 
does  not  involve  those  evils  which  Discipline  is  intended  to  prevent”  (4) . 

Holy  Scripture  is  the  infallible  test  of  every  statement  in  the 
Westminster  standards,  and  no  man  can  be  proved  guilty  of 
heresy  or  sin  who  is  not  in  conflict  with  Holy  Scripture. 

It  must  be  shown  that  the  doctrine  against  which  the  charge 
is  made  is  “  contrary  to  the  Holy  Scripture  or  to  the  regula¬ 
tions  and  practice  of  the  Church  founded  thereon”  There 
are  many  regulations  and  practices  of  the  Presbyterian  Church 
which  are  founded  neither  on  Confession  or  Holy  Scripture, 
but  which  are  mere  traditions  of  doctrine  and  practice.  I  shall 
show  you  at  the  proper  time  that  the  contradiction  charged 
against  my  doctrines  is  chiefly  of  this  character  of  contradiction 
— not  with  Bible  or  Confession,  but  with  traditional  dogma. 
The  prosecutors  have  not  been  able  to  show  that  there  is  con¬ 
tradiction  of  “  regulations  and  practice  founded  on  the  Confes¬ 
sion,”  still  less  that  there  is  contradiction  of  “regulations  and 
practice  founded  on  Holy  Scripture  ” 

(2)  The  Westminster  Confession,  the  ecclesiastical  rule  of 
faith,  gives  an  official  statement  of  the  doctrines  which  the 
Presbyterian  Church  finds  in  Holy  Scripture.  There  are  many 
statements  of  Holy  Scripture  which  are  not  comprehended  in 
the  statements  of  the  Westminster  standards.  Such  statements 
of  Holy  Scripture  have  not  yet  been  taken  up  by  the  Church 
into  its  system  of  doctrine  and  are  not  therefore  to  be  regarded 
as  a  part  of  the  rule  of  faith  of  the  denomination. 

E.g.  There  is  a  doctrine  of  the  millennium  given  in  Rev.  xx., 
but  there  is  no  doctrine  of  the  millennium  given  in  the  West- 


0 


THE  DEFENCE  OF  PROFESSOR  BRIGGS 


minster  standards.  There  are  differences  of  opinion  in  the 
Church  on  this  doctrine  of  the  millennium.  There  are  some  who 
think  that  it  is  an  exact  period  of  a  thousand  years  to  be  ex¬ 
pected  in  the  future.  Others  think  that  the  millennium  has 
already  passed.  Still  others  think  that  the  millennium  is  only  a 
great  symbol ;  again  others  think  that  it  is  the  complete  period 
of  the  kingdom  of  Christ  on  earth.  If  now  the  great  majority 
of  this  Presbytery  were  convinced  that  the  scriptural  doctrine 
of  the  millennium  made  it  a  period  of  a  thousand  years  of  bless¬ 
edness  in  the  future,  and  one  member  of  the  Presbytery  held 
the  older  view  that  the  millennium  is  long  past,  could  you  try 
him  for  heresy  because  he  interpreted  Holy  Scripture  differently 
from  his  Presbytery  in  this  regard?  The  Church  has  not  yet 
officially  determined  its  interpretation  of  the  scriptural  doctrine 
of  the  millennium,  and  no  Presbytery  has  the  right  by  a  majority 
vote  to  determine  any  doctrine  of  the  millennium  whatever.  If 
any  Presbytery  should  attempt  to  use  such  passages  of  Holy 
Scripture  to  define  dogma  not  already  defined  in  the  West¬ 
minster  Confession  and  Catechisms,  it  would  add  new  dogma 
to  the  official  doctrine  of  the  Church.  The  only  way  in  which 
new  dogmatic  statements  may  be  added  to  the  rule  of  faith  of 
the  Church,  is  by  overtures  in  the  form  of  revision  of  the  Con¬ 
fession  of  Faith,  adopted  by  two-thirds  of  the  Presbyteries,  in 
the  method  provided  by  the  form  of  government. 

A  court  cannot  consider  any  passages  of  Holy  Scripture  in 
proof  of  any  doctrines  not  defined  in  the  Westminster  Confes¬ 
sion  and  Catechisms,  nor  any  passages  of  Holy  Scripture  which 
are  not  essential  to  the  rule  of  faith  and  life.  This  principle 
rules  out  of  court  all  the  proof  texts  under  Charges  IV.  and  V. 
and  a  great  majority  of  all  those  under  the  other  specifications. 
It  also  rules  from  Charges  IV.  and  V.  the  statement  “  which 
is  contrary  to  direct  statements  of  Holy  Scripture.” 

It  is  the  law  of  the  Presbyterian  Church,  therefore,  that  this 
double  rule  of  faith,  the  divine  rule,  Holy  Scripture,  and  the 
ecclesiastical  rule,  the  Westminster  Confession,  should  coincide 
in  statement  before  that  statement  can  be  regarded  as  authori¬ 
tative  and  binding. 

This  double  standard  has  its  disadvantages  as  the  double 
monetary  standard  in  gold  and  silver  has  its  disadvantages. 


THE  RULE  OF  FAITH 


7 


As  silver  must  always  yield  to  gold,  so  the  Confession  must 
always  yield  to  Holy  Scripture.  It  would  be  an  ideal  way  to 
have  one  gold  standard  in  commerce  and  one  Biblical  standard 
in  theology.  But  there  are  theologians  as  well  as  merchants 
who  prefer  the  lower  standard.  So  long  as  the  double  standard 
exists  in  the  constitution  of  the  Presbyterian  Church,  we  must 
submit  to  it  with  all  its  inconveniences.  It  was  necessary  for 
the  prosecution  to  show  (1)  that  the  doctrines  with  which,  as 
they  allege,  my  declarations  are  in  irreconcilable  conflict,  are 
really  essential  doctrinal  statements  of  the  Westminster  sym¬ 
bols,  and  then,  (2)  that  they  are  also  doctrinal  statements  of 
Holy  Scripture.  This  they  have  not  done.  This  they  can¬ 
not  do. 


III. — The  System  of  Doctrine 

The  Presbyterian  Church  has  a  formula  of  subscription  which 
defines  the  sense  in  which  office  bearers  in  the  Presbyterian 
Church  are  bound  to  the  ecclesiastical  rule  of  faith : 

“  Do  you  sincerely  receive  and  adopt  the  Confession  of  Faith  of  this 
Church,  as  containing  the  system  of  doctrine  taught  in  the  Holy  Scrip¬ 
tures?  ” 

This  subscription  does  not  bind  us  to  every  statement  of  the 
Confession  of  Faith;  but  only  to  the  system  of  doctrine  con¬ 
tained  therein.  This  system  of  doctrine  in  the  formula  of  sub¬ 
scription  is  based  upon  the  terms  of  the  Adopting  Act  of  1729, 
the  Plan  of  Union  of  1758,  and  the  decision  of  the  supreme  court 
in  the  Harker  case  in  1765.  The  Adopting  Act  of  1729  adopted 
the  Confession  of  Faith  and  the  two  Catechisms  “  as  being  in 
all  the  essential  and  necessary  articles  good  forms  of  sound 
words  and  systems  of  Christian  doctrine.”  The  Scotch 
Adopting  Act  of  1690  uses  the  phrase  “as  containing  the 
sum  and  substance  of  the  doctrine  of  the  Reformed  Churches.  ” 
The  Irish  Pacific  Act  contains  the  clause  “as  being  a  good 
abridgment  of  the  Christian  doctrines  contained  in  the 
Holy  Scriptures.”  The  American  Adopting  Act,  based  on  all 
these  earlier  Presbyterian  documents,  gives  the  phrase,  “ as 
being  in  all  the  essential  and  necessary  articles ,  good  forms 


8 


THE  DEFENCE  OF  PROFESSOR  BRIGGS 


of  sound  words  and  systems  of  Christian  doctrine .”  The 
American  expression  has  two  sides.  The  latter,  “  good  forms 
of  sound  words  and  systems  of  Christian  doctrine ,”  is  of  the 
same  essential  character  as  the  Irish  and  Scotch  Acts.  There 
is  an  important  difference,  however.  The  Scotch  Act  refers  to 
the  doctrine  of  the  Reformed  Churches ,  the  Irish  Act  to 
Christian  doctrine ,  and  our  American  Act  agrees  with  the 
latter  and  not  the  former.  The  American  Act,  however,  gives 
a  still  further  qualification  in  the  direction  of  breadth  and  lib¬ 
erty.  The  Confession  does  not  say  “  good  forms  of  sound  words 
and  systems  of  Christian  doctrine  ”  in  all  its  articles,  but  only 
in  “all  the  essential  and  necessary  articles The  subscrip¬ 
tion  is  limited  to  essential  and  necesscw'y  articles. 

Different  theories  of  discipline  and  subscription  prevailed  in 
the  contests  between  the  old  side  and  the  new  side  in  the  eigh¬ 
teenth  century,  but  the  Plan  of  Union  of  1758  reaffirmed  the 
principles  of  the  Adopting  Act  as  follows : 

“  That  when  any  matter  is  determined  by  a  major  vote,  every  member 
shall  either  actively  concur  with,  or  passively  submit  to,  such  determi¬ 
nation  ;  or  if  his  conscience  permit  him  to  do  neither,  he  shall,  after  suffi¬ 
cient  liberty  modestly  to  reason  and  remonstrate,  peaceably  withdraw 
from  our  communion  without  attempting  to  make  any  schism.  Provided 
always,  that  this  shall  be  understood  to  extend  only  to  such  determina¬ 
tions  as  the  body  shall  judge  indispensable  in  doctrine  and  Presbyterian 
government.  ” 

We  see  in  the  phrase  “indispensable  in  doctrine  and  Pres¬ 
byterian  government  ”  only  a  synonym  of  the  “  essential  and. 
necessary  articles  ”  and  “  agreeable  in  substance  to  the  Word 
of  God  ”  of  the  Adopting  Act  of  1729. 

The  difference  as  to  subscription  was  harmonized  in  the 
declaration  of  this  same  Plan  of  Union: 

“Both  Synods  having  always  approved  and  received  the  Westminster 
Confession  of  Faith  and  Larger  and  Shorter  Catechisms  as  an  orthodox 
and  excellent  system  of  Christian  doctrine,  founded  on  the  Word  of  God, 
we  do  still  receive  the  same  as  the  confession  of  our  faith,  and  also 
adhere  to  the  plan  of  worship,  government,  and  discipline  contained  in 
the  Westminster  Directory,  strictly  enjoining  it  on  all  our  members  and 
probationers  for  the  ministry,  that  they  preach  and  teach  according  to 
the  form  of  sound  words  in  said  Confession  and  Catechisms,  and  avoid 
and  oppose  all  errors  contrary  thereto.” 


THE  RULE  OF  FAITH 


9 

The  phrase  “  orthodox  and  excellent  system  of  Christian 
doctrine  ”  is  substantially  the  same  as  the  phrase  of  the  Adopt¬ 
ing  Act  of  1729,  “as  being  in  all  the  essential  and  necessary 
articles  good  forms  of  sound  words  and  systems  of  Chris- 
tian  doctrine  ”  in  slightly  different  language.  The  system  of 
Christian  doctrine  contained  in  the  Westminster  Standards  was 
what  was  adopted  by  the  Reunited  Church  in  1729,  and  this 
embraced  only  that  which  was  “indispensable  in  doctrine  or 
Presbyterian  government  ”  that  which  was  “essential  and 
necessary  ”  to  the  Westminster  system. 

The  Synod  of  New  York  and  Philadelphia  fell  back  upon  the 
Adopting  Act  of  1729,  and  declined  to  follow  the  strict  views 
of  subscription  of  the  Synod  of  Philadelphia  as  expressed  in  the 
Declaratory  Act  of  1736. 

The  position  of  the  Synod  of  New  York  was  well  expressed 
in  their  ultimatum  in  1753  : 

“That  difference  in  judgment  should  not  oblige  a  dissenting  member 
to  withdraw  from  our  communion,  unless  the  matter  were  judged  by  the 
body  to  be  essential  in  doctrine  and  discipline.  And  this,  we  must  own, 
is  an  important  article  with  us,  which  we  cannot  any  way  dispense  with, 
and  it  appears  to  us  to  be  strictly  Christian  and  Scriptural,  as  well  as 
Presbyterian  ;  otherwise  we  must  make  everything  that  appears  plain  duty 
to  us  a  term  of  communion,  which  we  apprehend  the  Scripture  prohibits. 
And  it  appears  plain  to  us  that  there  may  be  many  opinions  relating  to 
the  great  truths  of  religion  that  are  not  great  themselves,  nor  of  sufficient 
importance  to  be  made  terms  of  communion.  Nor  can  these  sentiments 
‘open  a  door  to  an  unjustifiable  latitude  in  principles  and  practices,’  any 
more  than  the  apostolic  prohibition  of  receiving  those  that  are  weak  to 
doubtful  disputations.  What  is  plain  sin  and  plain  duty  in  one’s  account 
is  not  so  in  another’s ;  and  the  Synod  has  still  in  their  power  to  judge 
what  is  essential  and  what  is  not.  In  order  to  prevent  an  unjustifiable 
latitude,  we  must  not  make  terms  of  communion  which  Christ  has  not 
made,  and  we  are  convinced  that  He  hath  not  made  every  truth  and 
every  duty  a  term  ”  (Records,  p.  254) . 

The  Synod  of  New  York  insisted  upon  these  judicious  views, 
until  at  last  they  were  incorporated  in  the  Declaration  of  Re¬ 
union,  in  the  terms,  “orthodox  and  excellent  systems  of  Chris¬ 
tian  doctrine ,  ”  and  “  only  such  determinations  as  the  body 
shall  judge  indispensable  in  doctrine  or  Presbyterian  govern¬ 
ment.” 

There  was  a  heresy  trial  in  the  Synod  of  New  York  which 


10 


THE  DEFENCE  OF  PROFESSOR  BRIGGS 


was  not  completed  until  after  the  reunion.  Samuel  Harker  was 
finally  in  1763  declared  disqualified  to  exercise  the  ministerial 
office : 

“As  he  has  departed  from  the  truth  and  opposed  this  Church  in  some 
important  articles,  and  misrepresented  the  Church  of  Scotland,  his  doc¬ 
trine  and  practice  have  a  schismatical  tendency  ”  (Records,  p.  330). 

Mr.  Harker  made  a  written  “  Appeal  to  the  Christian  World” 
against  the  Synod.  John  Blair,  who  had  been  familiar  with 
the  case  from  the  beginning  in  the  Hew  Side  Presbytery  of 
Hew  Brunswick,  published  a  reply,  giving  a  “Hew  Side”  view 
of  the  Adopting  Act  of  1729,  which  was  regarded  as  still  in 
force : 

“  He  [Mr.  Harker]  would  have  it  believed  to  be  a  violation  of  an  Act 
of  Synod,  a.  d.  1729,  which  he  calls  one  of  the  great  Articles  of  their 
Union,  and  which  he  thought  sufficiently  secured  the  right  of  private 
judgment,  wherein  it  is  provided  that  a  minister  or  candidate  shall  be 
admitted  notwithstanding  scruples  respecting  article  or  articles  the  Synod 
or  Presbytery  shall  judge  not  essential  or  necessary  in  Doctrine,  Worship, 
and  Government.  But  in  order  to  improve  this  to  his  purpose,  he  takes 
the  words  essential  or  necessary  in  a  sense  in  which  it  is  plain  from  the 
Act  itself  the  Synod  never  intended  they  should  be  taken.  He  would  have 
them  to  signify  what  is  essential  to  ‘  Communion  with  Jesus  Christ,  ’  or  the 
Being  of  Grace  in  the  heart,  and  accordingly  supposes  that  no  error  can 
be  essential  which  is  not  of  such  malignity  as  to  exclude  the  advocate  or 
maintainer  of  it  from  communion  with  Christ.  But  the  Synod  say  essen¬ 
tial  in  Doctrine,  Worship,  and  Government — i.e. ,  essential  to  the  system 
of  doctrine  contained  in  our  Westminster  Confession  of  Faith  considered 
as  a  system,  and  to  the  mode  of  worship  and  plan  of  government  con¬ 
tained  in  our  Directory  ”  (“  The  Synod  of  New  York  and  Philadelphia 
Vindicated,”  Philadelphia,  1765,  pp.  10,  11). 

There  can  be  no  doubt  that  John  Blair  correctly  interprets 
the  Adopting  Act  of  1729,  and  also  the  views  of  the  Reunion 
Synod  of  1763 : 

“That,  therefore,  is  an  essential  error  in  the  Synod’s  sense,  which  is  of 
such  malignity  as  to  subvert  or  greatly  injure  the  system  of  doctrine  and 
mode  of  worship  and  government  contained  in  the  Westminster  Confes¬ 
sion  of  Faith  and  Directory.” 

The  terms  of  subscription  of  1788  adopted  in  connection  with 
the  whole  constitution  of  our  Church  were  based  upon  the 


THE  RULE  OF  FAITH 


11 


Adopting  Act,  the  Plan  of  Union,  and  the  decision  in  the 
Harker  case. 

In  these  ordination  vows  are  wrapped  up  all  the  principles  for 
which  American  Presbyterians  had  been  contending  from  the 
beginning — liberal  subscription  to  the  system  of  doctrine ,  a 
general  approval  of  the  Presbyterian  mode  of  government  and 
discipline,  and  the  necessity  of  piety  and  religious  experience  in 
the  ministry. 

That  the  Synod  was  a  broad  and  tolerant  body  is  clear  from 
this  fact.  The  Presbytery  of  Suffolk  was  offended  at  some 
proposed  modifications  in  the  Form  of  Government,  in  the 
direction  of  strictness.  The  Synod  replied  to  their  overture  in 
1787  requesting  a  separation,  with  the  desire  that  their  request 
should  be  reconsidered,  representing : 

“We  have  always  supposed  that  you,  as  brethren  with  us,  believed  in 
the  same  general  system  of  doctrine,  discipline,  worship,  and  Church 
government,  as  the  same  is  contained  in  the  Westminster  Confession  of 
Faith,  Catechisms  and  Directory.  .  .  .  We  are  Presbyterians,  and  we 
firmly  believe  the  Presbyterian  system  of  doctrine,  discipline,  and  Church 
government  to  be  nearer  to  the  Word  of  God  than  that  of  any  other  sect 
or  denomination  of  Christians.  Shall  all  other  sects  and  parties  be  united 
among  themselves  for  their  support  and  increase,  and  Presbyterians 
divided  and  subdivided,  so  as  to  be  the  scorn  of  some  and  the  prey  of 
others ?”  (Records,  p.  532). 

This  letter,  and  the  able  committee  appointed  by  Synod  to 
“remove  difficulties,”  gave  satisfaction  to  the  Presbytery  of 
Suffolk,  and  it  continued  cordially  with  the  Synod,  and  united 
in  the  adoption  of  the  Constitution.  It  was  the  “  general  sys¬ 
tem  of  doctrine,  discipline,  worship,  and  Church  government,” 
which  was  adopted  in  the  Constitution,  and  matters  not  essen¬ 
tial  and  necessary  to  this  “general  system  ”  were  in  1789,  as  in 
1729  and  1758,  not  binding.* 

The  Presbyterian  Church  during  the  past  one  hundred  years 
has  adhered  to  this  position.  There  have  been  great  ecclesias¬ 
tical  and  doctrinal  controversies.  The  separation  of  old  side 
and  new  side  in  1741  was  repeated  in  the  separation  of  old 
school  and  new  school  in  1837.  The  Reunion  of  1758  was  re¬ 
peated  in  the  Reunion  of  1870.  There  has  ever  been  contention 


*See  Briggs’  “American  Presbyterianism,”  pp.  371,  372. 


12 


THE  DEFENCE  OF  PROFESSOR  BRIGGS 


between  stricter  views  of  discipline  and  subscription  and  milder 
views;  but  the  Church  through  all  its  history  has  adhered  to 
its  historic  position  and  has  never  repealed  its  official  declara¬ 
tions  in  the  colonial  period,  and  has  never  changed  its  formula. 

It  is  plain,  therefore,  that  system  of  doctrine  in  our  terms  of 
subscription  means  the  system  of  doctrine  contained  in  the 
Westminster  Confession,  and  that  system  is  composed  of  the 
essential  and  necessary  articles — that  is,  those  articles  which 
are  essential  and  necessary  to  the  system.  The  Church  re¬ 
serves  the  right  to  define  what  these  essential  and  necessary 
articles  are ;  but  it  must,  when  it  makes  such  a  decision,  defi¬ 
nitely  and  distinctly  determine  that  they  are  necessary  and 
essential  articles  of  the  Westminster  Confession. 

The  Presbyterian  Church  in  the  United  States  of  America 
has  never  attempted  to  set  forth  what  are  the  essential  and 
necessary  articles  of  the  Westminster  Confession,  and  therefore 
there  is  room  for  considerable  difference  of  opinion  with  refer¬ 
ence  to  any  doctrine  which  may  be  in  debate.  But  there  are 
certain  historical  and  exegetical  principles  which  guide  to  a 
right  decision  in  most  cases. 

(a)  The  Presbyterian  Church,  has  three  ecclesiastical  rules  of 
faith,  three  doctrinal  standards,  the  Confession,  the  Larger 
Catechism,  and  the  Shorter  Catechism.  The  Adopting  Act 
adopts  them  as  three  distinct  systems.  The  term  of  subscrip¬ 
tion  now  in  use  refers  to  the  system  contained  in  the  Confession 
alone,  but  there  can  be  no  doubt  that  the  two  Catechisms  were 
adopted  in  1788  and  are  constituent  parts  of  the  Constitution. 
Here  then  we  have  three  parallel  systems  of  doctrine.  The 
Shorter  Catechism  is  a  compendium  of  the  Larger  Catechism. 
The  Larger  Catechism  was  made  subsequently  to  the  Confes¬ 
sion  by  the  same  Westminster  Assembly,  and  simply  put  in  a 
catechetical  form  the  doctrinal  statements  of  the  Confession  of 
Faith.  The  only  difference^  is  that  several  of  the  chapters  of 
the  Confession  cover  ground  that  was 'not  deemed  appropriate 
to  Catechisms,  and  therefore  have  their  parallels  in  the  Form  of 
Government,  Directory  of  Worship,  and  Book  of  Discipline. 

But  with  regard  to  the  strictly  doctrinal  chapters,  those  which 
alone  are  in  dispute  in  this  case,  there  can  be  no  doubt  that  the 
three  systems  cover  the  same  ground.  From  this  it  appears 


THE  RULE  OF  FAITH 


13 


that  nothing  should  be  regarded  as  essential  and  necessary  to 
the  system  which  is  not  contained  in  the  three  systems.  The 
Westminster  divines  could  not,  and  they  did  not,  omit  from 
their  Catechisms  anything  that  was  essential  and  necessary  to 
their  Confession.  No  statement  of  the  Confession  should  be 
regarded  as  an  essential  and  necessary  statement  which  has  not 
in  the  doctrinal  parts  its  parallel  statement  in  the  Larger  and 
Shorter  Catechisms ;  or  in  the  ecclesiastical  parts  in  the  Form 
of  Government  and  Directory  for  Worship. 

This  principle  rules  out  of  the  Amended  Charges  all  but  two 
of  the  seven  doctrines  stated  as  essential  doctrines. 

The  reverse  of  this  proposition  is  equally  true.  No  statement 
of  Larger  or  Shorter  Catechism  can  be  regarded  as  binding 
which  cannot  be  found  in  the  Confession  of  Faith  likewise. 
And  where  the  same  doctrine  is  found  in  the  three  systems  in 
different  terms,  the  terms  of  the  one  system  are  not  to  be  pre¬ 
ferred  to  the  terms  of  the  other  systems.  That  only  is  the  doc¬ 
trine  which  may  be  expressed  equally  well  in  the  terms  of  the 
three  systems.  Nothing  is  essential  to  the  doctrine  which  is 
not  common  to  the  terminology  of  the  Confession  and  of  the 
Larger  and  the  Shorter  Catechisms.  It  is  sufficient  here  to  call 
your  attention  to  one  example.  In  the  statement  of  the  original 
condition  of  our  race  prior  to  the  Fall,  the  Confession  of  Faith 
uses  the  term  “original  righteousness”  (VI.  2),  the  Larger 
Catechism  uses  the  term  “estate  of  innocency  ”  (21).  No  such 
stress  can  be  lawfully  laid  upon  the  term  “  righteousness  ”  as  to 
exclude  “innocency.”  It  is  as  lawful  to  use  the  one  phrase  as 
the  other.  The  doctrine  of  our  standards  must  be  consistent 
with  the  use  of  both  of  these  terms. 

(b)  Inasmuch  as  the  formula  of  subscription  binds  us  to  the 
essential  and  necessary  articles  and  to  those  alone,  no  word  or 
sentence  or  section  of  a  chapter  can  be  regarded  as  essential 
which  may  be  removed  without  impairing  the  Westminster 
system.  The  distinction  between  essential  and  necessary  on 
the  one  hand,  and  unessential  and  unnecessary  on  the  other, 
must  be  made  in  a  consistent  manner.  The  question  to  be  de¬ 
termined  is  not  what  a  majority  of  a  Presbytery  may  regard  as 
an  essential  and  necessary  article  of  faith  at  the  present  time. 
You  have  to  determine  what  is  an  essential  and  necessary  arti- 


14 


THE  DEFENCE  OF  PROFESSOR  BRIGGS 


cle  in  the  Westminster  Confession,  what  the  Westminster  di¬ 
vines  regarded  as  an  essential  and  necessary  article  of  faith,  and 
which  they  made  an  essential  and  necessary  article  when  they 
constructed  the  Westminster  system.  An  article  might  be  re¬ 
garded  as  essential  and  necessary  to  the  system  of  theology  of 
certain  honored  teachers  now  in  use,  and  so  to  the  systems  in 
the  minds  of  their  pupils,  which  was  yet  unessential  and  unneces¬ 
sary  in  the  minds  of  the  Westminster  divines.  Many  such  in¬ 
stances  might  be  cited.  There  are  many  things  essential  to  the 
scholastic  Calvinism  of  some  of  our  schools  of  theology  which 
are  unimportant  in  the  Confession  or  omitted  altogether  from 
the  Westminster  system.  E.g .,  the  doctrine  of  Repentance 
unto  Life  is  an  essential  and  necessary  doctrine  of  the  West¬ 
minster  Confession.  It  is  strongly  and  fully  stated  in  the  Con¬ 
fession  and  in  both  Catechisms,  and  yet  it  is  omitted  from  that 
system  of  theology  which  is  in  greatest  use  in  the  Presbyterian 
theological  schools  in  this  country  at  the  present  time.  The 
doctrine  of  Forgiveness  of  Sin  is  an  essential  and  necessary 
article  of  the  Westminster  system,  and  yet  one  looks  for  it  in 
vain  in  two  of  the  systems  of  theology  which  are  claimed  to  he 
standards  of  orthodoxy.  On  the  other  hand,  the  doctrine  of 
Regeneration  is  regarded  as  an  essential  and  necessary  article 
in  modern  Presbyterian  theology  since  the  rise  of  Methodism, 
and  yet  the  term  Regeneration  is  only  used  incidentally  in  the 
Confession  of  Faith.  The  broader  and  deeper  doctrine  of 
Effectual  Calling  occupies  the  place  of  regeneration  in  the  Con¬ 
fession  of  Faith  and  in  the  older  theologians.  Baptismal  Re¬ 
generation  is  regarded  by  most  modern  Presbyterians  as  a  dan¬ 
gerous  error,  and  yet  Cornelius  Burgess  wrote  a  book  entitled 
“  Baptismal  Regeneration  of  Elect  Infants ,”  and  he  was  sub¬ 
sequently  made  assessor  of  the  W estminster  Assembly,  and  was 
one  of  the  most  honored  and  influential  members  of  that  As¬ 
sembly  during  its  long  sessions.  Through  the  influence  of 
Bishop  Butler  the  doctrine  of  Probation  entered  into  and 
warped  the  theology  of  the  Presbyterian  churches,  and  this 
doctrine  is  regarded  by  many  as  essential  and  necessary  to  a 
true  moral  system.  But  the  doctrine  of  probation  is  unknown 
to  the  Westminster  divines.  It  had  indeed  an  Arminian  origin 
through  Daniel  Whitby  and  is  essentially  contrary  to  the  Cal- 


THE  RULE  OF  FAITH 


15 


vinistic  scheme  of  grace.  Great  changes  take  place  in  the  his¬ 
tory  of  theology.  Doctrines  arise  and  decline  in  importance. 
Old  doctrines  go  into  the  background,  new  doctrines  emerge. 
The  Westminster  standards  stereotyped  the  doctrines  of  the 
Westminster  divines  of  the  seventeenth  century.  We  have 
subscribed  to  their  system  and  to  the  essential  and  necessary 
articles  of  their  Confession.  But  we  have  not  subscribed  to 
any  other  dogmatic  systems  or  to  the  essential  and  necessary 
articles  in  any  other  systems,  whether  these  are  stated  in 
printed  books  or  are  bubbling  up  in  speculative  minds.  It  is 
necessary  for  the  Presbytery  to  'consider  that  they  have  no 
authority  to  determine  what  is  essential  and  necessary  accord¬ 
ing  to  their  views  of  what  is  essential  and  necessary  in  the  pres¬ 
ent  state  of  theology ;  ‘but  they  must  determine  what  is  essen¬ 
tial  and  necessary  according  to  the  Westminster  Confession  of 
Faith.  The  Westminster  system  is  the  rule  of  judgment,  not 
any  other  system  of  theology  which  may  possibly  rule  your 
faith  and  life. 

IV. — The  Constitution  a  Compact 

The  Presbyterian  Church  is  a  church  with  a  Constitution. 
This  Constitution  is  a  compact  between  the  ministers  who 
constitute  the  Church.  It  restricts  the  minister  who  subscribes 
to  it.  He  must  hold  to  the  essential  and  necessary  articles  of 
that  Constitution,  or  he  has  no  lawful  place  in  the  Church.  But 
the  Constitution  also  restricts  the  Church  and  protects  the  min¬ 
ister.  The  Church  cannot  change  its  Constitution  except  in  a 
constitutional  way,  giving  an  opportunity  to  all  who  dissent 
from  the  change  to  withdraw.  The  Church  cannot  impose  upon 
its  ministry  anything  that  is  unconstitutional,  or  anything  to 
which  he  did  not  agree  on  his  entrance  upon  the  ministry,  or  in 
a  subsequent  revision  of  the  Constitution.  The  ordination  of  a 
Presbyterian  minister  is  of  the  nature  of  a  compact  which  binds 
both  parties.  Neither  party  can  violate  that  compact  without 
wrong-doing.  If  the  minister  violate  the  compact  he  can  be 
tried  and,  if  found  guilty,  expelled  from  the  Church.  But  what 
if  the  Church  should  violate  the  compact  and  thereby  damage 
the  reputation  and  usefulness  of  the  minister?  In  such  a  case 


1G 


THE  DEFENCE  OF  PROFESSOR  BRIGGS 


the  minister  can  seek  redress  in  the  higher  ecclesiastical  courts, 
and  if  these  fail  him  and  persist  in  their  violation  of  compact 
and  do  him  any  wrong  which  the  civil  courts  can  recognize,  he 
may  resort  to  the  civil  court,  and  the  civil  court  may  compel  the 
Presbyterian  Church  to  adhere  to  its  part  of  the  compact  and 
stay  it  from  damaging  the  reputation  and  standing  of  its  min¬ 
isters  by  unconstitutional  action. 

The  history  of  subscription  is  instructive  here.  The  West¬ 
minster  divines  were  opposed  to  subscription.  They  would 
never  have  composed  such  elaborate  systems  if  they  had  sup¬ 
posed  they  would  ever  be  imposed  upon  the  ministry  of  the 
Church  of  God.  Anthony  Tuckney,  the  chairman  of  the  com¬ 
mittee  which  framed  the  Shorter  Catechism,  tells  us : 

“  In  the  Assemblie,  I  gave  my  vote  with  others  that  the  Confession  of 
Faith,  put  outt  by  Authcritie  should  not  bee  eyther  required  to  bee  sworn 
or  subscribed  too ;  wee  having  bin  burnt  in  the  hand  in  that  kind  before, 
but  so  as  not  to  be  publickly  preached  or  written  against  ”  (Eight  Letters 
of  Anthony  Tuckney  and  Benjamin  Wliichcote,  London,  *1753,  p.  76). 

Internal  evidence  makes  it  plain  that  the  Westminster  divines 
had  no  intention  of  making  the  Confession  of  Faith  a  rule  of 
faith.  The  Larger  Catechism  says : 

“The  Holy  Scriptures  of  the  Old  and  New  Testament  are  the  Word  of 
God,  the  only  rule  of  faith  and  obedience  ”  (3) . 

The  Shorter  Catechism  says : 

“The  word  of  God,  which  is  contained  in  the  Scriptures  of  the  Old  and 
New  Testaments,  is  the  only  rule  to  direct  us  how  we  may  glorify  and 
enjoy  him  ”  (2) . 

Furthermore,  the  Confession  represents  that  we  must  distin¬ 
guish  in  Scripture  itself  between  the  essential  and  non-essential, 
between  those  things  which  constitute  the  rule  of  faith  and  life ; 
and  those  things  which  are  not  constituent  parts  of  the  rule  of 
faith  and  life. 

“All  things  in  Scripture  are  not  alike  plain  in  themselves,  nor  alike 
clear  unto  all ;  yet  those  things  which  are  necessary  to  be  known,  be¬ 
lieved,  and  observed,  for  salvation,  are  so  clearly  propounded  and  opened 
in  some  place  of  Scripture  or  other,  that  not  only  the  learned,  but  the 
unlearned,  in  a  due  use  of  the  ordinary  means,  may  attain  unto  a  suffi¬ 
cient  understanding  of  them  ”  (I.  7) . 


THE  RULE  OF  FAITH 


17 


This  statement  of  our  Confession  is  of  vast  importance.  The 
prosecution  have  overlooked  it  in  their  use  of  citations  from  the 
Confession.  They  disregard  it  throughout  their  charges.  This 
section  teaches  that  Holy  Scripture  is  for  all  alike,  rich  and 
poor,  wise  and  ignorant,  and  that  all  may  attain  such  sufficient 
understanding  of  it  as  is  necessary  unto  salvation.  There¬ 
fore  a  dogmatic  faith  is  unnecessary  unto  salvation.  It  is  not 
necessary  that  any  one  should  accept  or  hold  any  confession  of 
faith,  or  any  catechism,  or  any  creed,  or  any  of  the  dogmatic 
utterances  of  the  Church  in  order  to  salvation.  They  may  one 
and  all  be  unknown  to  the  reader  of  the  Scriptures,  and  yet  he 
may  gain  from  Scripture  itself  “  sufficient  understanding  of  those 
things  which  are  necessary  to  be  known,  believed,  and  observed 
for  salvation.”  Scripture  needs  no  fences  to  inclose  it,  no 
breastworks  to  defend  it,  no  champion  to  espouse  its  cause,  no 
dogma  to  bar  it  in. .  It  is  entirely  sufficient  of  itself  alone  to 
convince,  persuade,  enlighten,  and  save  mankind. 

The  Westminster  divines  had  suffered  from  the  imposition 
of  dogma  and  ritual,  ceremonies  and  ecclesiastical  regulations 
which  pinched  their  consciences  and  forced  them  into  non¬ 
conformity.  They  saw  and  they  stated  the  true  Biblical  prin¬ 
ciple.  They  were  not  altogether  faultless  in  their  own  practice. 
They  constructed  an  elaborate  system  of  doctrine,  many  state¬ 
ments  of  which  cannot  be  said  to  be  “  clearly  propounded  and 
opened  in  some  place  of  Scripture  or  other.”  But  we  are  to 
follow  their  teaching  rather  than  their  practice.  In  this  teach¬ 
ing  they  rebuke  themselves  in  a  measure.  But  later  divines  in 
still  greater  measure  are  rebuked  for  the  elaborate  systems  of 
dogma  which  they  have  imposed  upon  the  ministry  in  our 
schools  of  theology  as  tests  of  orthodoxy.  Ministers  are  con¬ 
tending  hotly  for  dogma  which  not  only  is  not  “  clearly  pro¬ 
pounded  and  opened  in  Holy  Scripture,”  but  which  is  not  to 
be  found  in  Holy  Scripture  at  all,  and  which  is  not  even  stated 
in  the  Westminster  standards.  It  is  the  achievement  in  part 
of  the  modern  discipline  of  Biblical  theology  that  it  presents 
the  teachings  of  Holy  Scripture  in  their  Biblical  proportions, 
thus  showing  the  exaggerations  of  the  traditional  dogma,  its 
insertions  of  unscriptural  dogma  in  its  systems,  its  neglect  of 
important  scriptural  doctrine,  and  its  depression  of  essential 
2 


18 


THE  DEFENCE  OF  PROFESSOR  BRIGGS 


doctrine  of  Holy  Scripture.  There  is  thus  a  conflict  of  Bible 
with  tradition  which  must  go  on  in  a  life-and-death  struggle 
until  tradition  is  once  more  defeated  and  destroyed.  The  mod¬ 
ern  Discipline  of  Symbolics  shows  the  origin  of  the  Westminster 
symbols,  traces  the  historic  formation  of  its  doctrine  and  their 
expression  in  the  three  standards,  interprets  them  by  the  writ¬ 
ings  of  their  authors  and  the  history  of  opinion  in  their  time, 
and  thus  exposes  the  counterfeit  theology  which  has  been  palmed 
off  upon  modern  Presbyterians  by  those  who  claim  to  be  Puri¬ 
tans  but  are  none;  who  claim  to  be  sound  in  the  faith,  when 
the}7  have  abandoned  the  W estminster  faith  for  another  faith ; 
and  who  are  simply  and  alone  scholastic  Calvinists  of  the 
school  of  Francis  Turretine  of  Geneva,  with  a  streak  of  modern 
evangelicalism.  It  is  clear  that  the  Westminster  Confession 
binds  us  only  to  the  Bible  as  a  rule  of  faith  and  practice,  and 
only  to  those  things  in  the  Bible  which  are  essential  parts  of 
that  rule  of  faith  and  practice. 

The  Confession  says : 

“God  alone  is  Lord  of  the  conscience,  and  hath  left  it  free  from  the 
doctrines  and  commandments  of  men  which  are  in  anything  contrary  to 
his  word,  or  beside  it,  in  matters  of  faith  or  worship  ”  (XX.  2) . 

And  again : 

“All  which  are  given  by  inspiration  of  God,  to  be  the  rule  of  faith  and 
life  ”  (I.  2) . 

It  is  evident,  therefore,  that  the  Westminster  Confession 
makes  Holy  Scripture  the  only  rule  of  faith,  obedience,  and  wor¬ 
ship,  and  that  anything  besides  it  as  well  as  anything  contrary 
to  it  is  a  violation  of  liberty  of  conscience  which  should  not  be 
tolerated.  It  is  doubtful,  therefore,  whether  subscription  to  the 
Westminster  Confession  in  any  form  is  allowed  by  the  Confes¬ 
sion  itself ;  and  it  may  be  argued  with  plausibility  that  sub¬ 
scription  is  against  the  doctrine  of  the  three  standards.  So 
thought  the  English  Presbyterians  in  the  seventeenth  and  eigh¬ 
teenth  centuries,  and  subscription  was  never  imposed  upon  the 
ministry  by  the  old  English  Presbyterians.  Subscription  did 
not  originate  in  the  Church  of  Scotland.  It  was  imposed  upon 
the  Church  of  Scotland  by  the  Parliament  of  Scotland,  not  so 
much  to  bind  the  ministry  as  to  bind  the  Church.  Its  liistori- 


THE  RULE  OF  FAITH 


19 


cal  design  was  to  protect  all  ministers  of  the  Episcopal  Church 
of  Scotland,  who  after  the  Revolution  were  willing  to  conform 
to  the  Presbyterian  Church  of  Scotland  and  prevent  those  retal¬ 
iatory  measures  which  the  more  rigid  Presbyterians  were  de¬ 
sirous  of  carrying  out  against  their  former  persecutors.  Sub¬ 
scription  bound  the  Presbyteries  and  stayed  them  from  casting 
out  of  their  parishes  any  Episcopal  ministers  who  were  willing 
to  subscribe. 

The  historic  origin  of  subscription  in  the  Presbyterian  Church 
illustrates  what  has  ever  been  the  legal  obligations  of  terms  of 
subscription.  They  bind  the  minister  and  they  protect  him 
from  further  impositions  by  unreasonable  majorities.  They 
protect  the  Presbytery  from  heretics  within  the  limits  assigned 
— but  they  stay  the  Presbytery  from  pronouncing  any  minister 
a  heretic  who  is  faithful  to  his  subscription  vow. 

Considerable  time  has  been  taken  to  set  clearly  before  you  the 
ecclesiastical  and  civil  issues  which  may  be  wrapped  up  in  this 
case,  because  it  is  important  that  you  should  confront  all  the 
consequences  that  may  be  involved  in  a  trial  upon  unlawful 
charges.  It  will  be  necessary  for  the  prosecution  to  show  that 
my  teachings  are  in  conflict  with  essential  and  necessary  arti¬ 
cles  of  the  Westminster  Confession  and  Holy  Scripture,  or  you 
cannot  condemn  me  without  a  violation  of  the  Constitution  of 
the  Church.  If  you  should  violate  the  Constitution  of  the 
Church  and  break  the  compact  made  with  me  and  others  at 
our  ordination,  we  would  seek  relief  in  the  Synod  and  General 
Assembly,  and  if  the  General  Assembly  sustain  the  violation 
of  that  compact  with  me  and  those  who  agree  with  me,  and  do 
any  wrong  which  the  civil  courts  can  lawfully  recognize,  we 
might  be  compelled  to  seek  relief  in  the  civil  courts  of  our 
country. 

Explanations 

It  is  a  remarkable  feature  of  this  trial,  that  from  the  first 
initiation  of  the  process  until  the  present  time,  attention  has 
been  directed  to  the  Inaugural  Address  on  the  Authority  of 
Holy  Scripture.  If  the  Inaugural  Address  contain  heresy, 
exactly  the  same  heresies  were  before  the  public  in  my  printed 
books  for  months  previous  to  the  delivery  of  the  Address,  e.g.: 


20 


THE  DEFENCE  OF  PROFESSOR  BRIGGS 


The  question  of  the  inerrancy  of  Holy  Scripture  was  discussed  in 
my  “  Biblical  Study,”  published  in  1883,  and  in  my  “  Whither?” 
published  in  1889.  The  question  of  the  authorship  of  the  Pen¬ 
tateuch  was  discussed  in  the  “Presbyterian  Review,”  January, 
1883.  The  question  of  Sanctification  after  Death  is  set  forth  in 
“Whither?”  1889,  and  in  an  article  entitled  “Redemption  after 
Death”  in  the  “Magazine  of  Christian  Literature,”  December, 
1890.  What  was  stated  more  fully  in  these  writings  was  given 
in  a  condensed  and  rhetorical  form  in  the  Inaugural  Address.  I 
know  of  no  precedent  in  the  history  of  ecclesiastical  process, 
where  prosecutors  subjected  themselves  to  such  limitations  as 
these  prosecutors  when  they  confine  themselves  to  the  Inaugural, 
and  shut  their  eyes  against  all  the  previous  writings  of  the  de¬ 
fendant.  If  my  Inaugural  be  heretical,  all  those  other  writings 
are  still  more  heretical. 

Another  remarkable  feature  of  this  case  is  that  the  prosecu¬ 
tion  have  objected  to  any  statements  of  explanations  that  I  have 
made  since  the  publication  of  the  Inaugural.  They  seem  desir¬ 
ous  to  convict  the  Inaugural  of  heresy  rather  than  to  convict 
its  author  of  heresy.  But  it  is  my  right  to  set  the  Inaugural 
Address  in  the  light  of  its  history,  to  point  you  to  the  previous 
writings  of  the  author  in  which  his  doctrines  are  more  fully 
set  forth,  to  ask  you  to  consider  that  he  was  speaking  to  liis 
own  students  and  friends  who  knew  of  his  writings  and  his 
teachings;  that  the  Address  was  academic  in  character,  deliv¬ 
ered  in  the  chapel  of  Union  Theological  Seminary,  and  neces¬ 
sarily  terse  and  compact  in  utterance ;  that  it  is  in  the  nature 
of  an  outline  of  a  great  subject,  and  that  the  author  is  entitled 
to  fill  up  that  outline  and  to  explain  anything  in  it  in  his  own 
way.  It  is  not  sufficient  for  the  prosecution  to  prove  that  the 
Address  is  heretical  as  they  interpret  it.  It  is  necessary  that 
they  should  convince  you  that  the  author  of  the  Address  holds 
and  teaches  heretical  opinions,  or  else  you  cannot  convict  him. 

It  is  the  law  and  usage  of  the  Presbyterian  Church  that  the 
accused  should  be  entitled  to  explain  his  own  words.  You  can¬ 
not  convict  me  on  the  interpretation  of  the  prosecution ;  you  are 
obliged  in  law  to  accept  my  explanations. 

Once  more  let  me  call  your  attention  to  the  decision  of  the 
supreme  court  in  the  Craighead  case,  1824 : 


THE  BIBLE  THE  ONLY  FOUNTAIN  OF  DIVINE  AUTHORITY  21 


“  That  a  man  cannot  fairly  be  convicted  of  heresy,  for  using  expressions 
that  may  be  so  interpreted  as  to  involve  heretical  doctrines,  if  they  may 
also  admit  of  a  more  favorable  construction :  because,  no  one  can  tell  in 
what  sense  an  ambiguous  expression  is  used,  but  the  speaker  or  writer, 
and  he  has  a  right  to  explain  himself ;  and  in  such  cases,  candor  requires 
that  a  court  should  favor  the  accused,  by  putting  on  his  words  the  more 
favorable,  rather  than  the  less  favorable  construction.  Another  principle 
is,  that  no  man  can  rightly  be  convicted  of  heresy  by  inference  or  impli¬ 
cation  ;  that  is,  we  must  not  charge  an  accused  person  with  holding  those 
consequences  which  may  legitimately  flow  from  his  assertions.  Many 
men  are  grossly  inconsistent  with  themselves ;  and  while  it  is  right,  in 
argument,  to  overthrow  false  opinions,  by  tracing  them  in  their  connec¬ 
tions  and  consequences,  it  is  not  right  to  charge  any  man  with  an  opinion 
which  he  disavows  ”  (Craighead  Case  :  “  Minutes  of  the  General  Assem¬ 
bly,”  1824,  p.  122). 

It  is  necessary  for  me  to  say  again  what  I  have  said  before 
the  Presbytery  and  also  before  the  General  Assembly,  that  the 
process  against  me  was  instituted  without  giving  me  any  op¬ 
portunity  to  make  such  explanations  as  might  have  rendered 
a  process  unnecessary.  The  process  began  with  a  violation  of 
law.  I  was  entitled  to  make  those  explanations  before  pro¬ 
cess  was  begun.  You  ought  to  have  given  me  the  privilege. 
It  was  my  right  under  Presbyterian  law  and  ecclesiastical 
practice.  You  did  me  a  great  wrong  then;  you  cannot  deprive 
me  of  my  legal  right  to  make  these  explanations  now.  You 
are  jurors,  under  your  solemn  obligation  in  a  court  of  Jesus 
Christ,  and  in  the  Divine  Presence  you  must  give  heed  to  my  ex¬ 
planations  and  judge  according  to  them.  You  cannot  find  me 
guilty  unless  you  find  that  the  explanations  I  shall  give  of  my 
statements  are  contrary  to  essential  and  necessary  articles  of 
the  Westminster  Confession  and  of  Holy  Scripture. 


II 

THE  BIBLE  THE  ONLY  FOUNTAIN  OF  DIVINE  AUTHORITY 

In  order  to  save  valuable  time,  I  shall  venture  to  consider 
Charges  I.  and  II.  together.  This  may  be  done  with  propriety 
for  several  reasons:  (1)  They  both  relate  to  the  same  general 
subject,  namely,  “ fountains  of  divine  authority”  (2)  They 


22 


THE  DEFENCE  OF  PROFESSOR  BRIGGS 


both  assert  the  same  essential  doctrines  of  Holy  Scripture  and 
the  Standards  to  which  my  teachings  are  alleged  to  be  contrary. 
(3)  They  both  cite  the  same  passages  from  Holy  Scripture  and 
from  the  Standards  of  the  Church  in  evidence. 

The  charges  differ  in  two  respects:  (1)  in  several  citations 
from  the  Inaugural  Address;  (2)  in  the  statements  of  doctrines 
taught  by  me.  I  shall  therefore  consider  first  of  all  that  which 
is  common  to  the  two  charges,  and  afterward  what  is  special 
under  each  of  them. 

The  charges  have  three  parts*:  (1)  the  doctrines  stated  as  the 
essential  doctrine  of  the  Holy  Scriptures  and  the  Standards  of 
the  Presbyterian  Church  in  the  United  States  of  America;  (2) 
the  doctrines  attributed  to  me;  and  (3)  the  charge  that  the 
doctrines  attributed  to  me  “are  contrary  to  the  said  essen¬ 
tial  doctrines.” 

Let  us  test  these  three  parts  in  their  order. 

(1)  The  essential  doctrine  of  our  standards  is  said  to  be 
“that  the  Holy  Scripture  is  most  necessary,  and  the  rule  of 
faith  and  practice.” 

It  is  plain  that  two  doctrines  are  here  stated.  The  two  doc¬ 
trines  are  (1)  “that  the  Holy  Scripture  is  most  necessary,”  and 
(2)  “the  rule  of  faith  and  practice.”  These  two  doctrines  might 
have  been  embraced  under  a  more  general  statement  of  doc¬ 
trine  if  the  prosecution  had  chosen  to  do  so.  But  in  fact  they 
state  them  as  two  different  doctrines.  You  have  decided  to 
try  them  together,  but  to  vote  on  each  charge  separately. 

I  admit  that  the  doctrine,  “  that  Holy  Scripture  is  the  rule  of 
faith  and  practice,”  is  an  essential  doctrine  of  our  Standards 
and  of  Holy  Scripture.  There  is  no  evidence  required  to  prove 
that  proposition  in  the  Charge.  I  admit  that  the  doctrine  that 
“Holy  Scripture  is  most  necessary”  is  a  doctrine  of  the  West¬ 
minster  Confession.  I  am  not  prepared  to  admit  that  the  state¬ 
ment  of  that  doctrine  in  the  Westminster  Confession  is  essential 
in  the  form  of  its  expression.  But  whether  it  be  essential  or 
not,  is  immaterial.  I  do  not  care  to  argue  that  question,  for 
the  reason  that  I  firmly  believe  that  “  Holy  Scripture  is  most 
necessary  ”  in  that  exposition  of  the  phrase  which  the  context 
and  the  language  demand.  I  subscribe  to  both  of  these  doctrines 
entirely,  sincerely,  and  without  any  reservation  whatever.  But 


THE  BIBLE  THE  ONLY  FOUNTAIN  OF  DIVINE  AUTHORITY  23 


it  is  evident  that  there  is  a  difference  of  interpretation  of  these 
two  doctrines  between  the  prosecution  and  the  defendant.  They 
have  the  right  to  prove  that  their  interpretation  is  the  necessary 
interpretation,  and  that  my  interpretation  is  the  incorrect  inter¬ 
pretation.  They  have  given  you  no  such  proof ;  I  have  now  the 
right  to  give  you  the  correct  interpretation  of  these  phrases.  I 
shall  consider  the  evidence  offered  from  Holy  Scripture  at  this 
stage,  the  evidence  from  our  Standards  later  on.  The  question 
to  be  determined  in  our  study  of  these  passages  of  Scripture  is 
simply  this.  Do  they  show  that  Holy  Scripture  is  the  rule  of 
faith  and  practice,  or  that  Holy  Scripture  is  most  necessary, 
and  in  what  sense? 

(1)  Is.  viii.  20  was  shown  to  be  irrelevant  in  my  Response 
last  year.  I  renew  my  objection  to  it  as  follows : 

The  passage  is  incorrectly  translated  in  the  version  used,  for 
the  meaning  “there  is  no  light  in  them,”  is  not  justified.  The 
Revised  V ersion  renders  “  surely  there  is  no  morning  for  them,  ” 
they  have  no  hope  of  a  dawn  of  brighter  things.  The  proper 
rendering  is : 

“  When  they  say  unto  you,  Seek  unto  the  necromancers  and  unto  wizards  ; 

“Ye  chirpers  and  mutterers,  should  not  a  people  seek  unto  their  God? 

“On  behalf  of  the  living  will  they  seek,  unto  the  dead  for  instruction 
and  for  testimony? 

“If  they  say  not  so,  who  have  no  dawn,”  etc. 

This  passage  has  no  reference  whatever  to  the  Holy  Scrip¬ 
tures,  or  any  part  of  them ;  but  is  a  rebuke  of  the  people  of 
Judah  for  seeking  necromancers  and  wizards,  rather  than  the 
living  God  (pp.  44,  45) . 

They  are  not  warned  against  seeking  God  in  the  forms  of 
the  Reason  or  the  Church.  They  are  not  taught  that  Holy 
Scripture  is  most  necessary,  or  that  Holy  Scripture  is  the  rule 
of  faith  and  practice.  The  prosecution  insist  upon  the  render¬ 
ing  of  King  James’  Version  and  upon  the  reference  to  Holy 
Scripture.  But  the  Church  has  not  indorsed  their  version  or 
their  interpretation,  and  you  cannot  insist  upon  them  as  tests 
of  orthodoxy. 

(2)  Matt.  x.  32,  33: 

“Every  one  therefore  who  shall  confess  me  before  men,  him  will  I  also 
confess  before  my  Father  which  is  in  heaven.  But  whosoever  shall  deny 


24 


THE  DEFENCE  OF  PROFESSOR  BRIGGS 


me  before  men,  him  will  I  also  deny  before  my  Father  which  is  in 
heaven. ” 

Our  Saviour  here  tells  His  disciples  what  may  be  expected 
in  the  final  day  of  judgment.  Then  those  who  have  confessed 
Christ  will  be  confessed  before  the  Father  and  those  who  have 
denied  Christ  will  be  denied.  This  passage  has  nothing  what¬ 
ever  to  do  with  the  mode  in  which  Christ  becomes  known, 
whether  through  Bible,  Church,  or  Reason.  Jesus  does  not 
assert  that  Holy  Scripture  is  most  necessary,  but  that  confes¬ 
sion  of  Him  is  most  necessary.  He  has  nothing  to  say  about 
those  who  neither  confess  nor  deny  Him  through  lack  of  knowl¬ 
edge  of  Christ.  The  denial  here  spoken  of  is  the  antithesis  of 
confession.  It  is  not  the  attitude  of  the  careless  or  indifferent, 
or  of  those  who  have  not  yet  been  convinced  of  the  Messiahship 
of  Jesus  or  of  the  divine  authority  of  Holy  Scripture.  It  is 
solely  and  alone  of  those  who  have  definitely  examined  the 
claims  of  Christ  and  have  deliberately  and  finally  denied  Him 
before  men.  If  the  prosecution  think  that  Martineau  is  such  a 
man,  I  do  not  agree  with  them.  But  I  agree  with  them  as  to 
the  fact  that  all  those  who  thus  deny  Christ  will  be  denied  of 
Christ  in  the  judgment.  Now  I  ask  the  court  whether  I  am 
to  be  condemned  simply  on  the  spider’s  web  of  connection  that 
any  one  may  see  between  this  text  and  the  experience  of  Marti¬ 
neau?  Have  I  said  in  my  Inaugural  that  men  may  so  deny 
Christ  and  be  saved?  I  have  not. 

(3)  Luke  xvi.  29-31 : 

“  But  Abraham  saith,  They  have  Moses  and  the  prophets ;  let  them  hear 
them.  And  he  said,  Nay,  Father  Abraham  :  but  if  one  go  to  them  from 
the  dead,  they  will  repent.  And  he  said  unto  him,  If  they  hear  not 
Moses  and  the  prophets,  neither  will  they  be  persuaded,  if  one  rise  from 
the  dead.” 

It  is  difficult  to  see  the  relevancy  of  this  passage.  It  is 
doubtless  a  true  reflection  of  Abraham  that  the  one  who  refused 
to  hear  Moses  and  the  prophets,  that  is,  the  witness  of  the  Old 
Testament  Scriptures,  would  not  be  persuaded  to  hear  one  who 
rose  from  the  dead.  And  yet  Jesus  Christ  rose  from  the  dead, 
and  we  have  the  New  Testament  Scriptures  in  addition  to  the 
Old  Testament  Scriptures.  As  the  sufficiency  of  the  Old  Testa- 


THE  BIBLE  THE  ONLY  FOUNTAIN  OF  DIVINE  AUTHORITY  25 


ment  Scriptures  did  not  obstruct  the  resurrection  of  Christ  and 
the  giving  of  the  New  Testament  Scriptures,  why  should  the 
sufficiency  of  the  whole  Bible  prevent  men  from  finding  God 
also  in  the  forms  of  the  Church  and  the  Reason? 

If  Holy  Scripture  is  most  necessary,  according  to  this  pas¬ 
sage,  then  it  is  Moses  and  the  prophets  that  were  most  neces¬ 
sary.  But  are  the  prophets  so  necessary  that  we  have  no  need 
of  apostles?  Is  Moses  so  necessary  that  we  have  no  need  of 
Christ?  If  not,  then  the  passage  does  not  prove  most  necessary 
to  the  exclusion  of  other  things,  as  the  prosecution  would  prove 
from  their  use  of  the  phrase  “  most  necessary.  ” 

(4)  John  v.  39  : 

“Ye  search  the  Scriptures,  because  ye  think  that  in  them  ye  have  eter¬ 
nal  life  ;  and  these  are  they  which  bear  witness  of  me.  ” 

The  reference  here  is  to  the  Old  Testament  Scriptures  and  to 
them  alone. 

The  Old  Testament  Scriptures  certainly  bear  witness  of 
Christ,  but  that  is  not  to  say  that  the  New  Testament  Scrip¬ 
tures  may  not  bear  witness  of  Him,  or  that  the  Church  may  not 
bear  witness  of  Him,  or  that  the  Holy  Spirit  may  not  bear  wit¬ 
ness  of  Him  in  the  heart,  in  the  forms  of  the  Reason. 

(5)  John  xiv.  6 : 

“  Jesus  saith  unto  him,  I  am  the  way,  and  the  truth,  and  the  life  :  no 
one  cometli  unto  the  Father,  but  by  me.  ” 

Jesus  is  the  way  to  God,  and,  indeed,  the  only  way,  because 
He  is  the  only  mediator  between  God  and  man.  But  that  does 
not  imply  that  all  men  shall  have  the  same  intellectual  appre¬ 
hension  of  Jesus  or  the  same  doctrine  of  His  person,  His  offices, 
and  His  work.  It  does  not  tell  us  the  way  to  Jesus.  Holy 
Scripture  is  a  way  to  Jesus.  This  passage  does  not  tell  us  so, 
and  there  is  nothing  in  this  passage  to  show  that  the  Church 
and  the  Reason  are  not  also  ways  to  the  Son  of  God.  It  mat¬ 
ters  little  how  we  get  to  the  way,  if  only  we  are  in  the  way — so 
it  matters  little  liow  we  get  to  Jesus,  if  Jesus  is  only  our  way 
to  God.  Will  any  of  you  undertake  to  say  that  Martineau  is 
not  in  this  way?  Or,  if  you  do,  will  you  convict  me  of  heresy 
because  I  cannot  agree  with  you  as  to  the  question  of  fact? 


26 


THE  DEFENCE  OF  PROFESSOR  BRIGGS 


(6)  I.  John  v.  10  is  cited  by  the  prosecution  in  King  James’ 
Version : 

“  He  that  believeth  on  the  Son  of  God  hath  the  witness  in  himself  :  he 
that  believeth  not  God  hath  made  him  a  liar,  because  he  believeth  not 
the  record  that  God  gave  of  his  Son.  ” 

This  passage  was  tested  in  the  Response  last  year.  I  repeat 
what  was  then  said : 

“  If  one  turn  to  the  original  Greek  he  will  see  that  the  trans¬ 
lation,  ‘believeth  not  the  record  that  God  gave  of  his  Son,’  does 
not  correspond  with  the  original,  which  reads  ‘witness,  ’  and 
that  witness  is  not  Holy  Scripture  either  in  whole  or  in  part. 
The  passage  is  therefore  irrelevant  to  the  specification,  to  prove 
that  I  am  in  error  in  teaching  that  Martineau  found  divine 
certainty  through  the  Reason.  In  that  this  passage  of  Hol}r 
Scripture  teaches  a  direct  and  immediate  testimony  of  God 
within  a  man  without  the  mediation  of  Holy  Scripture,  it 
rather  favors  the  doctrine  that  God  may,  as  in  the  time  of  the 
apostles,  pursue  this  direct  method  with  some  men  in  our 
days”  (pp.  45,  46). 

(7)  Gal.  i.  9 : 

“As  we  have  said  before,  so  say  I  now  again,  If  any  man  preachetli 
unto  you  any  gospel  other  than  that  which  ye  received,  let  him  be 
anathema.  ” 

I  know  not  what  the  prosecution  would  prove  from  this  pas¬ 
sage.  But  let  me  call  your  attention  to  the  fact  that  the  apostle 
speaks  of  the  gospel  of  Jesus  Christ,  not  of  a  system  of  dogma. 
I  fear  lest  the  prosecution  may  unconsciously  confound  the  two, 
and  so  think  that  because  Martineau  does  not  accept  their 
dogmatic  system  or  the  dogmatic  system  of  the  modern  Evan¬ 
gelical  party,  he  has  rejected  the  gospel  and  substituted  another 
gospel  for  it.  But  they  present  no  evidence  that  this  is  the 
case.  It  is  true  that  Martineau  does  not  accept  our  canonical 
gospels  in  all  respects,  but  it  is  evident  that  the  apostle  is  not 
alluding  to  the  canonical  gospels  in  this  passage.  It  is  doubt¬ 
ful  whether  any  gospel  had  yet  been  written  when  he  wrote 
these  words.  The  apostle  is  referring  to  the  gospel  as  the  glad 
tidings  of  salvation  in  Jesus  Christ  which  he  himself  preached 
as  an  apostle  of  Jesus  Christ.  The  apostle  is  not  thinking 


THE  BIBLE  THE  ONLY  FOUNTAIN  OF  DIVINE  AUTHORITY  27 


even  of  his  own  theology,  which  at  the  early  date  when  he  wrote 
this  epistle  was  still  in  process  of  formation ;  but  he  is  stating 
the  essential  doctrine  of  salvation  which  in  this  epistle  he  is  so 
grandly  setting  forth  over  against  the  Judaizers.  But  where  do 
I  recognize  another  gospel  than  the  gospel  preached  by  Paul? 
Where  do  I  justify  Martineau  or  any  one  else  preaching  another 
gospel?  I  cannot  preach  the  doctrines  advocated  by  the  prose¬ 
cution,  or  those  of  the  school  of  theology  to  which  they  are  at¬ 
tached  ;  for  they  are  not  the  gospel.  I  will  not  say  that  they, 
like  those  Judaizers,  are  insisting  upon  a  different  gospel, 
“  which  is  not  another,  ”  any  more  than  I  will  say  it  of  Martineau ; 
but  I  venture  to  suggest  that  they  are  getting  into  dangerous 
proximity  with  that  different  gospel,  if  they  persist  in  maintain¬ 
ing  that  the  doctrines  of  their  school  of  theology  are  essential 
parts  of  the  gospel  of  J esus  Christ. 

(8)  II.  Timothy,  iii.  15-17 : 

“And  that  from  a  child  thou  hast  known  the  Holy  Scriptures,  which 
are  able  to  make  thee  wise  unto  salvation  through  faith  which  is  in 
Christ  Jesus.  All  Scripture  is  given  by  inspiration  of  God,  and  is  prof¬ 
itable  for  doctrine,  for  reproof,  for  correction,  for  instruction  in  right¬ 
eousness  :  that  the  man  of  God  may  be  perfect,  thoroughly  furnished 
unto  all  good  works.  ” 

I  called  attention  in  my  Response  last  year  to  the  fact  that 
this  passage  is  cited  from  King  James’  Version,  and  said :  “  But 
the  Revised  Version  renders,  ‘Every  Scripture  inspired  of  God 
is  also  profitable  for  teaching,  for  reproof,  for  correction,  for 
instruction  in  righteousness.  ’  There  is  a  difference  of  doctrine 
here  which  is  of  some  importance  in  the  use  of  this  text  for 
purposes  of  probation”  (p.  45) . 

As  correctly  rendered  it  teaches  the  profitableness  of  every 
inspired  Scripture ;  it  does  not  teach  the  unprofitableness  of  the 
Church  and  the  Reason. 

(9)  II.  Peter  i.  19-21: 

“  And  we  have  the  word  of  prophecy  made  more  sure ;  wliereunto  ye  do 
well  that  ye  take  heed,  as  unto  a  lamp  shining  in  a  dark  place,  until  the 
day  dawn,  and  the  day-star  arise  in  your  hearts  :  knowing  this  first,  that 
no  prophecy  of  Scripture  is  of  private  interpretation.  For  no  prophecy 
ever  came  by  the  will  of  man :  but  men  spake  from  God,  being  moved 
by  the  Holy  Ghost.” 


28 


THE  DEFENCE  OF  PROFESSOR  BRIGGS 


This  passage  tells  us  that  the  Old  Testament  prophets  were 
moved,  driven,  or  impelled  by  the  Holy  Spirit  in  their  prophecy ; 
that  their  word  of  prophecy  has  been  made  more  sure  to  us ; 
and  that  no  prophecy  of  Scripture  is  of  private  interpretation ; 
but  it  does  not  tell  us  that  the  Reason  or  the  Church  are  not 
great  fountains  of  divine  authority.  It  does  not  tell  us  that 
men  cannot  find  God  through  the  Reason  or  the  Church.  We 
may  ask,  How  else  were  the  prophets  moved,  driven,  or  impelled 
except  by  the  Holy  Spirit  acting  in  the  forms  of  their  Reason? 
And  if  the  Holy  Spirit  communicated  the  word  of  prophecy 
and  the  divine  authority  to  proclaim  that  word  to  the  prophets 
in  the  forms  of  their  Reason,  why  may  not  the  Holy  Spirit  com¬ 
municate  to  other  men  divine  guidance  and  certitude  through 
the  forms  of  the  Reason,  even  if  He  does  not  call  them  to  be 
prophets  and  give  them  a  word  of  revelation? 

We  have  examined  the  nine  passages  from  Holy  Scripture 
cited  by  the  prosecution.  Some  of  them  establish  the  doctrine 
that  Holy  Scripture  is  most  necessary,  which  doctrine  we  do 
not  deny.  But  none  of  them  are  in  conflict  with  the  declara¬ 
tions  made  in  the  Inaugural.  The  prosecution  in  their  argu¬ 
ment  use  four  additional  passages,  Acts  viii.  32-35 ;  x.  35  seq. ; 
xvii.  10  seq. ;  xix.  1-7.  These  refer  to  the  experience  of  the 
Ethiopian,  Cornelius,  the  Bereans,  and  Apollos  in  their  accept¬ 
ance  of  Christ.  Their  experience  proves  that  Holy  Scripture 
was  most  necessary  to  them,  in  that  it  was  necessary  that  their 
lower  stage  of  religious  experience  should  advance  to  the  higher 
stage  of  Christianity ;  but  it  does  not  prove  that  the  unwritten 
but  oral  gospel  of  Christ  was  necessary  to  them  in  the  sense 
that  they  could  not  have  been  in  a  state  of  grace  and  salvation 
without  it.  It  is  w~ell  known  that  these  were  all  pious  men, 
worshipping  God  as  He  had  been  revealed  to  them,  and  were 
prepared  to  accept  Christ,  and  did  accept  Him  as  soon  as  Christ 
was  made  known  to  them.  They  present  no  evidence,  there¬ 
fore,  of  the  proposition  of  the  prosecution  that  Holy  Scripture 
is  the  only  fountain  of  divine  authority.  And  you  have  no  right 
to  consider  them  as  against  me  even  if  I  have  failed  in  convinc¬ 
ing  you  of  their  irrelevancy,  because  Scripture  can  only  be  used 
by  the  prosecution  to  establish  the  essential  doctrine  set  forth 
in  the  Charge.  They  cannot  be  legally  used  to  prove  that  my 


THE  BIBLE  THE  ONLY  FOUNTAIN  OF  DIVINE  AUTHORITY  29 


declarations  are  erroneous,  as  you  have  already  determined  in 
sustaining  my  preliminary  objection.  I  am  not  obliged  to  de¬ 
fend  my  Inaugural  against  these  extracts  from  Holy  Scripture 
and  Confession,  as  you  have  already  ruled.  I  am  simply  and 
alone  called  upon  to  defend  myself  against  the  allegation  that 
my  declarations  are  against  the  two  essential  doctrines  men¬ 
tioned  in  the  Charge,  namely,  that  “  Holy  Scripture  is  most 
necessary,”  and  that  “Holy  Scripture  is  the  rule  of  faith  and 
practice.” 

The  prosecution  have  no  right  to  use  Holy  Scripture  and 
Confession  in  these  charges  further  than  to  prove  these  two 
essential  doctrines.  They  cannot  use  these  passages  against 
my  declaration  without  violating  the  law  of  process  in  our 
Church.  You  cannot  use  these  passages  against  me  and  con¬ 
demn  me  on  their  account  without  a  violation  of  the  obliga¬ 
tion  you  assumed  when  you  undertook  to  sit  as  jurors  in  this 
case,  and  of  the  ruling  of  the  Presbytery  itself  before  the  argu¬ 
ment  began. 

(2)  The  doctrines  attributed  to  me  are  as  follows : 

(A)  “  The  Reason  is  a  fountain  of  divine  authority,  which 
may  and  does  savingly  enlighten  men,  even  such  men  as  reject 
the  Scriptures  as  the  authoritative  proclamation  of  the  will  of 
God  and  reject  also  the  way  of  salvation  through  the  mediation 
and  sacrifice  of  the  Son  of  God  as  revealed  therein.” 

(B)  “  The  Church  is  a  fountain  of  divine  authority  which, 
apart  from  the  Holy  Scripture,  may  and  does  savingly  enlighten 
men.” 

(a)  The  prosecution  are  obliged  to  prove  these  doctrines  in 
their  specifications,  by  extracts  from  the  Inaugural.  There  are 
two  specifications  under  each  charge.  These  specifications  con¬ 
sist  of  four  groups  of  extracts  from  the  Inaugural.  These  ex¬ 
tracts  are  properly  proofs  of  some  fact  that  the  prosecution 
should  state.  But  what  do  they  propose  to  prove?  They  do 
not  tell  us  in  their  specifications.  If  the  extracts  are  statements 
of  fact  such  as  the  law  of  specification  requires,  where  are  the 
proofs  of  the  fact?  If  they  are  proofs,  where  are  the  statements 
of  fact? 

( b )  But  suppose  we  take  them  as  both  facts  and  proofs  of  fact, 
inasmuch  as  they  are  extracts  from  the  Inaugural.  We  are 


30 


THE  DEFENCE  OF  PROFESSOR  BRIGGS 


then  obliged  to  consider  the  question  of  their  relevancy  to  the 
charge.  I  am  obliged  to  admit  these  extracts,  and  you  are 
obliged  to  vote  that  the  specifications  are  true  so  far  as  the 
extracts  are  concerned.  But  what  is  it  that  they  prove?  How 
are  you  to  bring  them  under  the  charge?  Consider  the  effect 
of  these  extracts  upon  the  several  members  of  the  court.  I  take 
it  that  my  statement  that  “  Martineau  could  not  find  divine 
authority  in  the  Church  or  the  Bible,  but  did  find  God  enthroned 
in  his  own  soul,”  is  objectionable  to  many  of  you.  You  may 
think  me  guilty  of  error  or  of  indiscretion  in  making  such  a 
statement.  You  might  desire  to  condemn  me  on  that  account. 
Would  you  then  he  justified  in  voting  to  sustain  the  charge  for 
that  reason?  On  consideration  you  will  see  that  there  are  sev¬ 
eral  links  in  a  chain  of  argument  before  you  can  attach  this 
statement  about  Martineau  to  the  doctrine  attributed  to  me. 
You  ought  to  test  all  the  links  of  this  chain  before  you  can 
honorably  condemn  me  as  guilty  of  the  charge.  This  testing 
ought  to  be  made  under  the  specification.  The  only  way  to 
accomplish  this  under  present  circumstances  is  to  insert  in 
these  specifications  the  doctrine  attributed  to  me  in  the  charge, 
i.  e. : 

“In  an  Inaugural  Address,  which  the  said  Rev. Charles  A. Briggs,  D.D. , 
delivered  at  the  Union  Theological  Seminary  in  the  city  of  New  York, 
January  20th,  1891,  on  the  occasion  of  his  induction  into  the  Edward 
Robinson  Chair  of  Biblical  Theology,  which  Address  has  been  published 
and  extensively  circulated  with  the  knowledge  and  approval  of  the  said 
Rev.  Charles  A.  Briggs,  D.  D. ,  and  has  been  republished  by  him  in  a 
second  edition  with  a  preface  and  an  appendix,  the  said  Rev.  Charles  A. 
Briggs,  D.  D. ,  taught  that  the  Reason  is  a  fountain  of  divine  authority 
which  may  and  does  savingly  enlighten  men,  even  such  men  as  reject 
the  Scriptures  as  the  authoritative  proclamation  of  the  will  of  God  and 
reject  also  the  way  of  salvation  through  the  mediation  and  sacrifice  of 
the  Son  of  God  as  revealed  therein ;  all  which  is  sustained  by  the  follow¬ 
ing  sentences  from  the  said  Inaugural.  ” 

Only  by  thus  inserting  the  statement  of  fact  can  you  vote 
intelligently  upon  this  specification.  This  is  the  form  in  which 
I  shall  bring  the  question  before  you. 

(c)  We  have  simply  to  determine  whether  the  doctrines  at¬ 
tributed  to  me  are  sustained  by  the  extracts  given  from  the 
Inaugural.  I  admit  the  statements  that  “  the  Reason  is  a  foun- 


THE  BIBLE  THE  ONLY  FOUNTAIN  OF  DIVINE  AUTHORITY  31 


tain  of  divine  authority,”  and  “the  Church  is  a  fountain  of 
divine  authority.”  But  I  deny  all  the  rest  of  the  doctrines  at¬ 
tributed  to  me  in  the  form  and  in  the  language  in  which  the 
prosecution  state  them  in  these  two  charges.  They  do  not  prove 
and  they  cannot  prove  from  the  Inaugural  that  I  teach  that 
men  who  reject  the  Scriptures  and  the  salvation  through  Jesus 
Christ  are  savingly  enlightened  by  the  Reason  or  by  the  Church. 
There  are  no  express  statements  to  that  effect  in  the  Inaugural. 
There  are  no  statements  which  by  logical  deduction  involve 
such  conclusions.  You  cannot  hold  me  responsible  for  any  in¬ 
ferences  made  from  my  statements  by  the  prosecution  or  by 
yourselves,  whether  such  inferences  appear  valid  to  you  or  not. 
There  are  several  invalid  assumptions  which  the  prosecution 
are  forced  to  make  before  they  can  convince  you  even  by  in¬ 
direction  of  the  validity  of  such  inferences. 

(3)  I  shall  waste  no  time  in  an  attempt  to  expound  the  doc¬ 
trines  which  have  been  invented  by  the  prosecution  and  wrongly 
attributed  to  me,  but  I  shall  proceed  to  the  main  question  in 
hand,  namely,  whether  the  doctrines  which  I  truly  hold,  that 
“  the  Reason  is  a  fountain  of  divine  authority  ”  and  “  the  Church 
is  a  fountain  of  divine  authority,”  are  contrary  to  the  essential 
doctrines  named  in  the  charges,  or  to  any  other  doctrines  of 
Holy  Scripture  and  Confession.  I  shall  show  you  that  they  are 
not  contrary  to,  but  in  strict  accordance  with,  the  Westminster 
Standards  and  Holy  Scripture. 

My  doctrine  is  that  “  the  Reason  is  historically  a  great 
fountain  of  divine  authority .”  Do  I  contradict  the  West¬ 
minster  Confession  when  I  take  this  position?  Some  of  you 
think  that  I  do.  But  you  overlook  some  very  important  state¬ 
ments  in  the  Confession  of  Faith  of  our  Church.  It  is  a  happy 
circumstance  that  in  the  Inaugural  Address  itself  I  defined  the 
Reason  in  the  use  I  made  of  it.  The  prosecution  recognized  my 
definition  when  they  quoted  it  in  their  original  charge.  I  said 
in  the  Inaugural  that  I  was  “  using  Reason  in  a  broad  sense  to 
embrace  the  metaphysical  categories ,  the  conscience ,  and  the 
religious  feeling ”  (p.  26).  It  seems  probable  that  the  prose¬ 
cution  do  not  keep  this  definition  before  them  when  they  make 
inferences  from  the  statements  which  they  cite  from  the  In¬ 
augural.  This  probability  amounts  almost  to  a  certainty  when 


32 


THE  DEFENCE  OF  PROFESSOR  BRIGGS 


we  observe  that  they  have  omitted  this  definition  from  the  list  of 
extracts  from  the  Inaugural  given  in  the  new  charge ;  for  I  hesi¬ 
tate  to  impute  to  a  committee  of  Presbytery  an  unworthy  motive 
for  this  omission.  This  court  should  notice  this  omission  and 
beware  lest  you  make  it  yourselves.  You  should  keep  in  mind 
constantly  that  the  Reason  as  I  use  it  embraces  the  conscience 
and  the  religious  feeling. 

The  Testimony  from  the  Standards 

{a)  The  Westminster  Confession  sets  forth  the  great  distin¬ 
guishing  doctrine  of  the  Reformed  churches,  that  the  divine 
grace  is  sovereign  and  free,  far  above  and  beyond  human  in¬ 
strumentalities,  more  comprehensive  than  any  limits  conceiv¬ 
able  by  man ;  free  to  go  beyond  the  ordinary  divinely  appointed 
means  of  grace ;  free  to  persist  and  overcome  every  resistance 
of  sin  and  unbelief.  While  the  Holy  Spirit  ordinarily  uses 
Bible,  Church,  and  sacrament,  He  sometimes  works  apart  from 
them  and  without  them.  On  this  principle  the  Westminster 
Confession  bases  its  doctrine  of  the  salvation  of  elect  infants 
and  elect  incapables,  who  from  their  tender  age  or  their  abnor¬ 
mal  organization  are  “  incapable  of  being  outwardly  called  by 
the  ministry  of  the  Word”  (X.  3).  Such  are  saved  by  Christ 
through  the  Spirit,  “  who  worketh  when,  and  where,  and  how 
He  pleasetli  ”  (X.  3) . 

This  doctrine  of  the  freedom  of  the  divine  grace  and  the 
power  of  the  divine  Spirit  to  work  anywhere,  and  in  any  place 
and  in  any  manner  He  pleaseth,  opens  a  gate  upon  a  wide  ter¬ 
ritory  into  which  the  Westminster  divines  looked  with  awe  and 
hesitating  wonder,  but  which  they  left  for  later  divines  to  ex¬ 
plore  as  a  region  of  liberty  and  extra  confessional  doctrine. 
The  Westminster  divines  did  not  themselves  go  any  further 
into  this  new  field  of  the  seventeenth  century  than  to  maintain 
that  there  were  elect  infants  and  elect  incapables,  but  modern 
Presbyterians  have  with  unanimity  extended  their  doctrine  of 
elect  infants  and  elect  incapables  to  all  infants  and  all  incapa¬ 
bles;  and  have  also  added  the  class  of  elect  heathen,  a  class 
which  the  Westminster  divines  excluded  from  the  election  of 
grace.  If  any  class  of  persons  can  be  saved  by  the  divine 


THE  BIBLE  THE  ONLY  FOUNTAIN  OF  DIVINE  AUTHORITY  33 

Spirit  apart  from  Church  and  Bible  and  sacraments,  how  else 
can  they  be  saved  except  by  the  direct  contact  of  the  divine 
Spirit  with  their  spirits  in  the  forms  of  the  Reason?  I  have 
given  a  careful  history  of  this  doctrine  in  the  little  book  “  How 
shall  we  Revise?”  and  have  traced  the  several  stages  of  change 
toward  this  doctrine,  through  which  our  Presbyterian  Church 
has  gone  on  advancing  toward  the  present  determination  to  re¬ 
vise  the  tenth  chapter  of  our  Confession.  Dr.  Shedd  says : 

“  That  some  evangelized  men  are  saved  in  the  present  life  by  an  extra¬ 
ordinary  exercise  of  redeeming  grace  in  Christ  has  been  the  hope  and 
belief  of  Christendom  ”  (“  Dogmatic  Theology,  ”  II.  706) . 

“This  (X.  3)  is  commonly  understood  to  refer  not  merely  or  mainly  to 
idiots  and  insane  persons,  but  to  such  of  the  pagan  world  as  God  pleases 
to  regenerate  without  the  use  of  the  written  revelation  ”  (II.  708) . 

“It  is  certain  that  the  Holy  Spirit  can  produce,  if  He  please,  such  a 
disposition  and  frame  of  mind  [a  habit  of  faith  and  penitence]  in  a  pagan 
without  employing,  as  He  commonly  does,  the  written  Word”  (II.  708). 

I  do  not  approve  of  Dr.  Shedd’s  assertion  that  this  modern 
view  “has  been  the  hope  and  belief  of  Christendom ,”  but  there 
is  little  doubt  that  his  statement  expresses  the  conviction  of 
modern  Presbyterians.  But  if  the  Holy  Spirit  without  media¬ 
tion  of  Holy  Scripture  or  Holy  Church  can  produce  faith  and 
penitence  in  a  pagan,  how  else  can  the  divine  Spirit  produce 
these  habits  of  soul,  except  through  the  forms  of  the  Reason? 

Accordingly  I  said  in  the  appendix  to  the  Inaugural  Address, 
and  I  say  it  again :  “  Unless  God’s  authority  is  discerned  in  the 
forms  of  the  Reason,  there  is  no  ground  upon  which  any  of  the 
heathen  could  ever  have  been  saved,  for  they  know  nothing 
of  Bible  or  Church.  If  they  are  not  savingly  enlightened  by 
the  Light  of  the  World  in  the  forms  of  the  Reason,  the  whole 
heathen  wvxrld  is  lost  forever”  (pp.  88,  89).  This  is  quoted  by 
the  prosecution  as  if  it  were  erroneous.  But  it  states  the  exact 
truth. 

The  Westminster  Confession  points  the  way  into  this  terri¬ 
tory  of  divine  grace  imparted  through  the  Reason ;  who  then 
shall  venture  to  obstruct  it? 

The  attitude  of  the  Westminster  Confession  to  the  heathen  . 
and  the  unbaptized  in  Christian  lands  is  clear  from  the  follow¬ 
ing  statement  of  Chapter  XXV.  2  :  “  The  visible  Church  .  .  . 

3 


34 


THE  DEFENCE  OF  PROFESSOR  BRIGGS 


of  all  those  throughout  the  world  that  profess  the  true  religion, 
.  .  .  together  with  their  children — out  of  which  there  is  no  ordi¬ 
nary  possibility  of  salvation.”  We  cannot  subscribe  to  this  last 
clause  at  the  present  time.  We  refuse  to  deny  the  possibility 
of  salvation  to  the  unbaptized  children  of  the  Baptist  churches, 
or  to  members  of  the  Society  of  Friends,  or  to  soldiers  of  the 
Salvation  Army,  which  have  no  ministry,  no  sacraments,  and 
no  church  organization.  We  recognize  that  there  may  be  and 
that  there  are  possibilities  of  salvation  through  the  activity  of 
the  divine  Spirit  in  heathen  lands.  The  faith  of  the  modern 
Presbyterian  Church  has  changed  in  this  particular.  If  this 
clause  “  out  of  which  there  is  no  ordinary  possibility  of  salva¬ 
tion”  be  an  essential  and  necessary  article,  the  whole  Church 
is  heretical.  But  it  is  not  an  essential  article.  We  could  erase 
this  statement  of  XXV.  2  without  impairing  the  great  doctrine 
of  this  section  of  the  chapter. 

The  Society  of  Friends  and  the  Salvation  Army  both  use 
Holy  Scripture  as  a  means  of  grace ;  but  both  agree  in  using 
also  the  Reason  in  religion  to  an  extent  far  beyond  that  which 
is  common  to  the  evangelical  Christian  denominations.  But 
the  elect  heathen  have  no  access  to  Holy  Scripture.  There  is 
no  other  avenue  of  grace  for  them  than  the  Reason.  And  there 
is  no  doubt  that  the  Holy  Spirit  uses  the  Reason  in  these  cases 
as  a  fountain  of  divine  authority  and  through  it  imparts  relig¬ 
ious  certainty. 

(b)  Some  may  imagine  that  the  introductory  sentence  of  the 
Confession  of  Faith  is  against  this  doctrine,  when  it  says : 

“Although  the  light  of  nature,  and  the  works  of  creation  and  provi¬ 
dence,  do  so  far  manifest  the  goodness,  wisdom,  and  power  of  God,  as  to 
leave  men  inexcusable ;  yet  they  are  not  sufficient  to  give  that  knowledge 
of  God,  and  of  His  will,  which  is  necessary  unto  salvation  ”  (1. 1) . 

This  section  is  indeed  cited  by  the  prosecution  in  support  of 
their  doctrine.  But  this  statement  of  the  Confession  does  not 
contravene  the  doctrine  that  the  Reason  is  a  great  fountain  of 
divine  authority.  The  light  of  nature  should  be  carefully  dis¬ 
tinguished  from  the  light  of  grace.  The  Confession  states  how 
far  this  light  of  nature  goes.  It  “  so  far  manifests  the  goodness, 
wisdom,  and  power  of  God  as  to  leave  men  inexcusable.”  I 


THE  BIBLE  THE  ONLY  FOUNTAIN  OF  DIVINE  AUTHORITY  35 


agree  to  this,  but  I  think  the  light  of  nature  goes  further  still. 
It  shines  from  the  face  of  the  sun ;  it  declares  the  glory  of  God 
from  the  firmament;  it  discloses  the  wisdom  of  God  in  the 
order  of  nature ;  it  unfolds  the  goodness  of  God  in  His  beneficent 
provisions  for  all  creatures ;  it  manifests  the  power  of  God  in 
the  irresistible  forces  of  light,  fire,  and  storm ;  it  appears  in  the 
natural  reason,  framing  all  the  operations  of  our  mind  in  the 
forms  of  time,  place,  and  circumstance,  and  coloring  them  with 
the  hues  of  the  true,  the  beautiful,  and  the  good ;  it  is  set  forth 
in  the  history  of  the  world,  which  is  the  divine  education  of  our 
race.  But  the  Confession  is  correct  in  stating  that  the  light  of 
nature  “  is  not  sufficient  to  give  that  knowledge  of  God  and  of 
His  will  which  is  necessary  unto  salvation.”  The  knowledge 
necessary  unto  salvation  can  only  come  from  the  light  of  grace. 
The  simple  question  is  whether  this  light  of  grace  shines  outside 
the  boundaries  of  the  Church,  beyond  the  range  of  Holy  Scrip¬ 
ture  and  Holy  Sacrament.  The  Confession  does  not  assert  this. 
But  it  does  not  deny  it,  and  we  have  a  right  as  Presbyterians 
to  maintain  the  opinion  as  extra-confessional  doctrine  provided 
we  can  prove  it  from  Holy  Scripture  or  from  the  experience  of 
mankind,  or  from  any  other  valid  reasons.  The  light  of  nature 
is  a  glorious  light  of  revelation.  It  should  bring  man  to  his 
knees  before  God  as  a  penitent  sinner.  But,  as  I  have  else¬ 
where  said,  “the  light  of  the  eternal  Logos  is  a  still  more  blessed 
light ;  for  it  is  the  light  of  the  Son  of  God,  the  Saviour  of  the 
world.  The  world  came  into  existence  through  Him.  He  was 
ever  in  the  world,  even  when  the  world  knew  Him  not.  He 
was  ever  coming  into  the  world  in  the  progress  of  divine  revela¬ 
tion,  until  the  theophany  and  prophecy ;  historic  guidance  and 
ideal  aim  were  realized  in  the  incarnate  Redeemer.” 

“It  is  quite  true  that  the  Westminster  divines  did  not  catch 
a  glimpse  of  this  light  of  the  Logos.  Their  Christology  was 
defective  at  this  point  as  well  as  other  points.  They  did  not 
give  expression  to  this  doctrine.  It  is  significant  that  they  do 
not  cite  from  the  prologue  of  John’s  gospel,  with  the  exception 
of  verses  1  and  14  to  prove  the  incarnation  of  the  Logos.  But 
they  did  not  exclude  the  doctrine  of  the  Light  of  the  world  even 
if  they  neglected  it.  It  is  the  merit  of  the  Society  of  Friends 
or  Quakers  that  they  discerned  this  doctrine  in  the  prologue  of 


36  THE  DEFENCE  OF  PROFESSOR  BRIGGS 

a 

John’s  gospel,  and  held  it  up  before  the  modern  world  until  it 
became  one  of  the  most  characteristic  doctrines  of  modern 
times.”  Does  the  light  of  the  Logos  shine  in  heathen  lands 
apart  from  Bible  and  sacrament?  Does  the  light  of  the  Logos 
shine  in  Christian  lands  to  some  of  those  whom  the  Church  has 
driven  away  from  the  sacred  aisles  of  redemption?  The  Con¬ 
fession  does  not  deny  it.  If  the  prologue  of  the  gospel  of  John 
teaches  it,  the  Confession  must  yield  to  Holy  Scripture.  Then 
those  who  deny  it  are  the  real  heretics.  It  matters  not,  however, 
in  point  of  law,  what  may  be  the  correct  opinion  on  this  great 
subject.  Unless  the  prosecution  can  show  that  it  is  a  cardinal 
doctrine  of  the  Confession,  that  the  Logos  does  not  shine  with 
sufficient  light  outside  the  Church  to  save  men,  and  that  Holy 
Scripture  sustains  the  Confession  in  this  particular,  you  cannot 
legally  convict  me  of  heresy  for  teaching  that  the  Reason  is  a 
great  fountain  of  divine  authority,  when  I  explain  that  the 
light  of  the  Logos  shines  in  some  cases  among  the  heathen, 
through  the  Reason,  with  a  divine  authority,  which  convinces 
and  assures  pious  souls  that  they  have  and  hold  the  truth  and 
salvation  from  God. 

(c)  The  prosecution  also  cite  in  evidence  the  last  half  of 
section  1st,  as  follows : 

“Therefore  it  pleased  the  Lord,  at  sundry  times,  and  in  divers  man¬ 
ners,  to  reveal  himself,  and  to  declare  that  his  will  unto  his  church ; 
and  afterwards,  for  the  better  preserving  and  propagating  of  the  truth, 
and  for  the  more  sure  establishment  and  comfort  of  the  church  against 
the  corruption  of  the  flesh,  and  the  malice  of  Satan  and  of  the  world,  to 
commit  the  same  wholly  unto  writing  :  which  maketh  the  Holy  Scripture 
to  be  most  necessary ;  those  former  ways  of  God’s  revealing  his  will 
unto  his  people  being  now  ceased.  ” 

This  clearly  teaches  “Holy  Scripture  to  be  most  necessary.” 
There  need  be  no  dispute  about  that.  I  agree  to  it  as  fully  as 
the  prosecution.  The  question  is  whether  the  Scriptures  are 
most  necessary  in  the  sense  that  no  one  can  find  God  and  salva¬ 
tion  without  them.  This  the  Confession  does  not  teach.  The 
Confession  refers  to  a  divine  revelation  of  salvation  to  the 
Church  before  the  divine  revelation  of  salvation  was  committed 
to  writing  in  Holy  Scripture.  Holy  Scripture  was  not  most 
necessary  to  salvation  before  it  was  given  and  written;  but 


I 


THE  BIBLE  THE  ONLY  FOUNTAIN  OF  DIVINE  AUTHORITY  37 

only  after  it  was  written.  It  is  most  necessary  to  salvation  to 
those  who  enjoy  the  unspeakable  privilege  of  possessing  it.  But 
what  shall  we  say  of  those  who  do  not  possess  the  Holy  Scrip¬ 
tures?  Are  they  deprived  of  the  opportunity  of  salvation  on 
the  lower  stage  because  others  more  highly  favored  enjoy  the 
privilege  of  salvation  on  the  higher  stage  of  Holy  Scripture? 
You  cannot  say  so  unless  you  would  exclude  from  salvation  all 
who  know  not  Holy  Scripture,  including  the  heathen,  imbeciles, 
and  babes.  You  must  make  these  exceptions  to  the  statement 
that  Holy  Scripture  is  most  necessary.  But  are  we  shut  up  to 
these  exceptions?  Are  there  none  in  Christian  lands  to  whom 
Holy  Scripture  is  practically  an  unknown  book?  Some  are  kept 
from  Holy  Scripture  by  priestcraft,  others  by  the  use  that  has 
been  made  of  it  in  the  interests  of  the  privileged  classes,  others 
still  by  the  dogmatic  barriers  to  which  attention  was  called  in 
the  Inaugural.  Doubtless  there  is  guilt  on  the  part  of  these, 
but  in  my  opinion  there  is  much  greater  guilt  on  the  part  of 
the  modern  pharisees  who  have  obstructed  the  access  of  these 
multitudes  to  the  word  of  God.  What  now  shall  we  say  with 
reference  to  all  these  who  for  one  reason  or  another  have  no 
saving  knowledge  of  Holy  Scripture?  Is  Holy  Scripture  so 
necessary  in  the  case  of  all  of  them  that  there  can  be  no  salva¬ 
tion  without  their  knowledge  of  it  and  faith  in  it?  I  do  not 
believe  it.  You  do  not  believe  it.  You  preach  to  them  Jesus 
Christ  and  salvation  through  Him.  You  do  not  go  to  them 
with  the  Bible  and  demand  of  them  that  they  shall  accept  the 
Scriptures  in  order  to  salvation.  If  they  accept  Jesus  Christ  as 
their  Saviour  they  will  be  saved  even  if  they  have  never  seen  a 
copy  of  the  Bible,  or  have  never  read  or  heard  a  chapter  from 
its  pages.  The  Scripture  is  most  necessary  as  the  rule  of  faith 
and  life  to  guide  the  Church  and  the  people  in  the  paths  of 
redemption  until  they  attain  its  full  salvation;  but  it  is  not 
most  necessary  in  the  sense  that  no  individual  man  may  be 
saved  without  a  personal  knowledge  of  it  and  a  personal  faith 
in  it.  Christianity  is  a  personal  faith  in  Christ  the  living  and 
reigning  Redeemer. 

The  more  concise  statement  of  the  Larger  Catechism  cited  by 
the  prosecution  must  be  interpreted  in  the  same  way.  It  is 
true  that  “  God’s  word  and  spirit  only,  do  sufficiently  and  effect- 


38 


THE  DEFENCE  OF  PROFESSOR  BRIGGS 


ually  reveal  Him  (God)  unto  men  for  their  salvation.”  But 
“  word  and  spirit  ”  are  combined  in  this  statement.  The  “  Holy 
Spirit  only”  one  can  always  say,  and  also  “word  and  spirit 
only ;  ”  but  we  cannot  say  “  word  only  ”  if  we  mean  by  word 
the  written  Scripture ;  for  all  admit  that  some  men  are  saved 
by  the  Holy  Spirit’s  effectual  calling  without  the  use  of  Holy 
Scripture.  Indeed,  that  is  expressly  stated  in  the  chapter  on 
Effectual  Calling,  as  we  have  seen. 

( d )  The  prosecution  cite  in  evidence  section  5th,  as  follows : 

“We  may  be  moved  and  induced  by  the  testimony  of  the  church  to  an 
high  and  reverent  esteem  for  the  Holy  Scripture  ;  and  the  heavenliness  of 
the  matter,  the  efficacy  of  the  doctrine,  the  majesty  of  the  style,  the 
consent  of  all  the  parts,  the  scope  of  the  whole  (which  is,  to  give  all  glory 
to  God) ,  the  full  discovery  it  makes  of  the  only  way  of  man’s  salvation,  the 
many  other  incomparable  excellences,  and  the  entire  perfection  thereof, 
are  arguments  whereby  it  doth  abundantly  evidence  itself  to  be  the  Word 
of  God ;  yet,  notwithstanding,  our  full  persuasion  and  assurance  of  the 
infallible  truth,  and  divine  authority  thereof,  is  from  the  inward  work  of 
the  Holy  Spirit,  bearing  witness  by,  and  with  the  word,  in  our  hearts.  ” 

It  is  difficult  to  see  why  the  prosecution  cite  this  passage. 
They  overlooked  it  in  their  original  charges.  This  section  is  to 
me  the  choicest  one  in  the  chapter,  one  which  I  not  only  agree 
to,  but  greatly  admire  in  all  its  sentences  and  words.  The  only 
clew  I  have  to  the  use  the  prosecution  propose  to  make  of  it  is 
their  italicizing  of  the  words,  “  the  only  way  of  man's  salva¬ 
tion. ”  I  know  not' what  they  propose  to  prove  by  this  phrase. 
“  What  is  the  only  way  of  man’s  salvation?”  Is  it  Holy  Scrip¬ 
ture?  Is  it  not  rather  Jesus  Christ,  the  way,  the  truth,  and 
the  life?  The  Confession  calls  attention  to  the  “  full  discovery  ” 
Holy  Scripture  “  makes  of  the  only  way  of  man’s  salvation.”  It 
does  not  say  that  the  only  discovery  of  the  way  of  man’s  salva¬ 
tion  is  in  Holy  Scripture,  but  that  the  full  discovery  is  there. 
The  prosecution  have  to  substitute  their  “  only  ”  for  the  “  full  ”  of 
the  Confession,  ere  they  can  use  this  sentence  to  prove  anything 
which  they  have  proposed  in  the  charge. 

In  point  of  fact  this  section  of  the  Confession  is  in  direct 
conflict  with  that  dogmatic  theory  of  the  canon,  which  under¬ 
lies  the  whole  attack  upon  my  doctrine  of  Holy  Scripture. 
This  section  of  the  Confession  gives  the  human  testimony  of 


THE  BIBLE  THE  ONLY  FOUNTAIN  OF  DIVINE  AUTHORITY  39 


the  Church  its  full  force  as  probable  evidence;  but  distinctly 
asserts  that  the  divine  evidence,  the  only  one  that  can  give  cer¬ 
tainty,  is  the  Holy  Spirit  bearing  witness  by,  and  with  the 
word  in  our  hearts. 

Those  who  are  charging  me  with  error  are  themselves  guilty 
at  this  point,  for  they  rest  the  authority  of  the  canon  upon  the 
probable  evidence  of  the  early  Church.  I  agree  with  the  Con¬ 
fession  in  resting  it  upon  the  internal  divine  evidence  of  the  ' 
Holy  Spirit  bearing  witness  by  and  with  the  word  in  our  hearts. 
They  make  it  a  purely  historical  question,  and  can  therefore 
never  go  beyond  the  range  of  probability  in  their  doctrine  of 
the  canon,  can  never  reach  certainty.  They  close  the  way  to 
that  divine  evidence  which  alone,  according  to  our  Confession, 
can  give  certainty  of  the  divine  authority  of  Holy  Scripture. 
And  they  say  that  “  there  is  no  other  fountain  of  divine  author¬ 
ity  than  Holy  Scripture.  You  cannot  gain  certainty  through 
the  Church  or  the  Reason.”  I  said  in  the  passages  quoted  from 
the  Inaugural,  and  I  say  again :  “  Divine  authority  is  the  only 
authority  to  which  man  can  yield  implicit  obedience,  on  which 
he  can  rest  in  loving  certainty  and  build  with  joyous  confidence. 

.  .  .  There  are  historically  three  great  fountains  of  divine 
authority — the  Bible,  the  Church  and  the  Reason  ”  (p.  4) . 

Those  who  deny  this  statement  are  the  true  heretics.  For 
they  would  deprive  us  of  loving  certainty  and  joyous  confidence 
in  our  religion.  As  the  ancient  pharisees  were  rebuked  by  our 
Lord  because  they  shut  the  kingdom  of  heaven  against  men, 
refusing  to  enter  themselves  or  to  permit  others  to  enter,  so  these 
modern  pharisees  should  be  rebuked  by  the  Presbyterian  Church 
for  obstructing  all  the  divinely  appointed  means  of  access  to 
divine  authority,  all  the  avenues  by  which  the  divine  Spirit 
gives  certainty  to  men  in  religion.  They  would  deprive  us  of 
that  assurance  of  grace  and  salvation  which  is  such  an  unspeak¬ 
able  comfort  in  our  holy  religion. 

(e)  The  prosecution  cite  in  evidence  section  6th  of  the  Con¬ 
fession  as  follows : 

“  The  whole  counsel  of  God ,  concerning  all  things  necessary  for  his  own 
glory,  man's  salvation,  faith,  and  life,  is  either  expressly  set  down  in 
Scripture,  or  by  good  and  necessary  consequence  may  be  deduced  from 
Scripture:  unto  which  nothing  at  any  time  is  to  be  added,  whether  by  new 


40 


THE  DEFENCE  OF  PROFESSOR  BRIGGS 


revelations  of  the  Spirit,  or  traditions  of  men.  Nevertheless  we  acknowl¬ 
edge  the  inward  illumination  of  the  Spirit  of  God  to  be  necessary  for  the 
saving  understanding  of  such  things  as  are  revealed  in  the  word ;  and 
that  there  are  some  circumstances  concerning  the  worship  of  God,  and 
government  of  the  Church,  common  to  human  actions  and  societies,  which 
are  to  be  ordered  by  the  light  of  nature  and  Christian  prudence,  accord¬ 
ing  to  the  general  rules  of  the  word,  which  are  always  to  be  observed.  ” 

The  part  italicized  was  cited  in  the  original  charges.  The 
part  not  italicized  was  left  out  of  the  citation  in  the  original 
charge.  A  sense  of  propriety  has  doubtless  induced  the  prose¬ 
cution  to  give  the  latter  in  their  new  charges.  They  may  itali¬ 
cize  the  first  half,  I  shall  emphasize  the  whole  of  it.  For  I  fail 
to  see  how  the  first  half  can  be  properly  used  against  my 
declarations.  I  agree  to  it  without  exception.  It  does  not  say 
that  “  the  whole  counsel  of  God  ”  is  revealed  in  Holy  Scripture ; 
but  only  that  part  of  the  counsel  of  God  “  concerning  all  things 
necessary  for  his  own  glory,  man’s  salvation,  faith,  and  life.” 
The  statement  limits  the  revelation  in  Holy  Scripture  to  neces¬ 
sary  things.  These  necessary  things  are  (1)  either  expressly 
set  down  in  Scripture,  or  (2)  by  good  and  necessary  consequence 
may  be  deduced  from  Scripture.  These  are  necessary  things 
and  no  others.  The  sentence  now  closes  with  a  prohibition 
from  adding  any  other  necessary  things ;  for  that  is  certainly 
the  meaning  of  the  sentence  “  unto  which  nothing  at  any  time 
is  to  be  added,  whether  by  new  revelation  of  the  Spirit  or  tradi¬ 
tions  of  men.”  That  is  just  the  doctrine  the  prosecution  should 
keep  distinctly  in  mind  at  the  present  time,  because,  as  will 
appear,  the  Confession  here  prohibits  exactly  what  they  are 
doing  in  this  prosecution,  namely,  adding  to  the  necesary  doc¬ 
trines  of  Holy  Scripture  other  doctrines  of  modern  dogmaticians 
which  they  are  claiming  to  be  so  necessary  that  I  must  be 
adjudged  a  heretic  for  not  holding  them.  I  certainly  do  not 
sin  against  this  passage  of  the  Confession,  because  I  am  not 
adding  to  the  list  of  necessary  doctrines.  My  effort  for  some 
years  has  been  rather  to  show  that  many  doctrines  deemed 
necessary  to  the  traditional  dogma  are  not  necessary  from  the 
point  of  view  of  Scripture  and  Confession.  That  is  indeed  the 
underlying  issue  of  the  present  contest  in  the  Presbyterian 
Church.  The  prosecution  could  not  have  done  me  a  better 


THE  BIBLE  THE  ONLY  FOUNTAIN  OF  DIVINE  AUTHORITY  41 


service  than  by  bringing  this  passage  into  evidence,  thus 
enabling  me  to  emphasize  what  has  already  been  said,  that  no 
one  can  be  condemned  for  heresy  who  does  not  transgress  an 
essential  doctrine  of  Holy  Scripture. 

The  first  part  of  this  section  has  nothing  in  it  in  contraven¬ 
tion  of  the  doctrine  that  the  Reason  is  a  great  fountain  of  divine 
authority.  But  the  second  part  distinctly  favors  that  doctrine, 
for  it  states  (1)  that  something  more  is  necessary  than  the 
written  or  spoken  word  of  Holy  Scripture.  “  We  acknowledge 
the  inward  illumination  of  the  Spirit  of  God  to  be  necessary  for 
the  saving  understanding  of  such  things  as  are  revealed  in  the 
word.”  This  illumination  of  the  Spirit  of  God  is  an  illumina¬ 
tion  of  the  Reason,  or  to  use  the  sentence  of  the  previous  sec¬ 
tion,  “bearing  witness  by  and  with  the  word  in  our  hearts.” 
This  “inward  illumination,”  this  illumination  in  our  hearts, 
what  can  it  be  but  in  the  conscience,  the  religious  feeling,  the 
forms  of  the  Reason? 

(2)  Circumstances  concerning  the  worship  and  church  gov¬ 
ernment  are  “  to  be  ordered  by  the  light  of  nature  and  Christian 
prudence.”  Here  is  a  field  of  unnecessary  and  unessential 
things  where  there  is  no  light  in  Holy  Scripture  and  where 
man  is  left  to  the  use  of  the  reason  and  the  light  of  nature,  in 
which  the  Holy  Spirit  may  guide  the  individual  Christian  and 
the  Church  without  the  use  of  the  written  Word.  This  passage 
of  the  Confession  therefore  teaches  that  Scripture  reveals  neces¬ 
sary  things,  and  that  unnecessary  things  are  beyond  its  scope 
and  are  to  be  determined  from  other  authoritative  sources ;  that 
the  inward  illumination  of  the  Spirit  in  the  heart,  in  the  con¬ 
science,  in  the  Reason,  is  necessary  in  any  case. 

(/)  The  prosecution  cite  in  evidence  section  10th,  as  follows: 

“  The  Supreme  Judge,  by  which  all  controversies  of  religion  are  to  be 
determined,  and  all  decrees  of  councils,  opinions  of  ancient  writers, 
doctrines  of  men,  and  private  spirits,  are  to  be  examined,  and  in  whose 
sentence  we  are  to  rest,  can  he  no  other  hut  the  Holy  Spirit  speaking  in 
the  Scripture.  ” 

They  emphasize  the  words  which  give  the  essence  of  the  doc¬ 
trine,  namely,  that  “  The  Supreme  Judge  can  be  no  other  but 
the  Holy  Spirit  speaking  in  the  Scripture.” 


42 


THE  DEFENCE  OF  PROFESSOR  BRIGGS 


In  what  respect  do  I  controvert  that?  Any  one  at  all  familiar 
with  my  writings  will  recognize  that  I  have  been  in  the  habit 
of  using  this  doctrine  as  one  of  the  great  doctrines  of  the 
Reformation  and  of  Puritanism.  Let  me  repeat  what  I  wrote 
some  years  ago : 

“It  was  this  principle  that  made  the  Puritan  faith  and  life  invincible. 

“  O  that  their  descendants  had  maintained  it !  If  they  had  laid  less 
stress  upon  the  minor  matters :  the  order  of  the  decrees,  the  extent  of  the 
atonement,  the  nature  of  imputation,  the  mode  of  inspiration,  and  the 
divine  right  of  presbytery — and  had  adhered  to  this  essential  principle 
of  their  fathers,  the  history  of  Puritanism  would  have  been  higher, 
grander,  and  more  successful.  We  would  not  now  be  threatened  with 
the  ruin  that  has  overtaken  all  its  unfaithful  predecessors  in  their  turn. 
Let  their  children  return  to  it ;  let  them  cling  to  it  as  the  most  precious 
achievement  of  British  Christianity ;  let  them  raise  it  on  their  banners, 
and  advance  with  it  into  the  conflicts  of  the  day ;  let  them  plant  it  on 
every  hill  and  in  every  valley  throughout  the  world ;  let  them  not  only 
give  the  Bible  into  the  hands  of  men  and  translate  it  into  their  tongues, 
but  let  them  put  it  into  their  hearts  and  translate  it  into  their  lives. 
Then  will  Biblical  interpretation  reach  its  culmination  in  practical  in¬ 
terpretation,  in  the  experience  and  life  of  mankind  ”  (pp.  365,  366) . 

It  is  not  Holy  Scripture  which  is  the  supreme  Judge,  it  is 
the  Holy  Spirit ,  and  the  Holy  Spirit  alone.  Holy  Scripture 
is  that  in  which  the  Holy  Spirit  speaks,  and  He  speaks  bearing 
witness  by  and  with  the  word  in  the  heart  of  the  believer.  The 
Holy  Spirit  speaks  to  the  reason  of  the  godly  man  through 
Holy  Scripture  and  gives  him  the  ultimate  decision  in  all 
matters  of  faith  and  practice. 

I  never  taught  any  other  doctrine.  If  any  one  thinks  that 
this  doctrine  conflicts  with  the  doctrine  that  the  Reason  is  a 
great  fountain  of  divine  authority,  he  thinks  wrongly  and  is 
apart  from  the  true  lines  of  logical  reasoning.  The  Confession 
does  not  here  say  that  the  Holy  Spirit  does  not  speak  in  the 
Reason  apart  from  Holy  Scripture,  and  so  speaking,  speak  with 
divine  authority.  It  says  that  the  Holy  Spirit  is  the  supreme 
Judge.  He  is  the  supreme  Judge  wherever  and  whenever  and 
in  whatever  form  He  speaks.  The  Confession  is  only  con¬ 
cerned  to  teach  that  it  is  when  speaking  in  the  Holy  Scripture 
that  He  is  the  supreme  Judge,  and  that  when  so  speaking  the 
Church  must  yield  allegiance  whatever  may  have  been  the 


THE  BIBLE  THE  ONLY  FOUNTAIN  OF  DIVINE  AUTHORITY  43 

decrees  of  councils  or  opinions  of  ancient  writers;  and  that 
private  spirits  must  obey,  whatever  the  doctrines  of  men  may 
have  been ;  in  other  words  that  Church  and  Reason  must  yield 
to  the  supreme  Judge  the  Holy  Spirit,  when  speaking  in  Holy 
Scripture.  I  have  not  said  that  the  Holy  Spirit  speaks  the  final 
word  in  the  Reason  to  which  the  Church  and  the  Bible  must 
yield.  I  have  not  exalted  the  Reason  above  the  Bible.  I  am 
no  Rationalist.  It  is  the  teaching  of  the  Confession  to  which 
I  subscribe,  that  the  Holy  Spirit  when  He  speaks  the  infallible 
word  in  Holy  Scripture  always  speaks  through  the  Scripture 
to  the  Reason,  and  by  His  inward  work  in  the  heart,  in  the 
Reason,  gives  certainty,  assurance,  and  infallible  conviction  of 
the  truth  and  grace  of  God.  There  is  no  conflict  between 
Reason  and  Scripture  in.  such  a  case.  There  can  be  none.  The 
Holy  Spirit  unites  them  in  an  infallible  bond  of  certainty. 

(g)  The  prosecution  also  cite  in  evidence  several  answers  to 
questions  in  the  Catechisms  which  teach  that  Holy  Scripture  is 
“  the  only  rule  of  faith  and  obedience,  ”  “  the  only  rule  to  direct 
us  how  we  may  glorify  and  enjoy  Him.” 

The  only  matter  charged  against  me  in  the  original  charge 
was  that  my  doctrine  was  in  irreconcilable  conflict  with  the 
cardinal  doctrine  of  Holy  Scripture  and  Confession,  that  “  Holy 
Scripture  is  the  only  infallible  rule  of  faith  and  practice.” 
The  prosecution  leave  off  the  adjective  infallible ,  and  now 
charge  me  with  teaching  a  doctrine  which  is  in  conflict  with 
the  doctrine  that  Holy  Scripture  is  the  only  rule  of  faith  and 
practice.  Let  me  call  your  attention  to  the  purpose  of  the 
Inaugural. 

The  aim  of  the  Inaugural  Address  was  not  to  vindicate  the 
Bible  as  a  rule  of  faith ;  certainly  not  to  say  anything  which  could 
directly  or  indirectly  militate  against  that  essential  doctrine. 
If  that  had  been  my  aim  I  would  have  made  it  my  theme.  My 
aim  was  to  set  forth  the  divine  authority  of  Holy  Scripture,  and 
therefore  the  title  given  to  the  Address  was  “  The  Authority  of 
Holy  Scripture.”  That  was  its  theme,  that  was  the  objective 
point  of  its  argument  and  its  rhetoric.  It  aimed  to  remove 
every  stumbling-block  set  up  by  the  traditional  dogma  in  the 
way  of  the  authority  of  Holy  Scripture.  It  endeavored  to  set 
forth  the  authority  of  Holy  Scripture  by  adducing  such  evi- 


44 


THE  DEFENCE  OF  PROFESSOR  BRIGGS 


dence  from  Scripture  itself  as  every  reasonable  man  might 
understand  and  estimate  at  its  intrinsic  value. 

It  is  not  charged  that  I  deny  the  authority  of  Holy  Scripture. 
The  complaint  is  that  I  do  not  make  the  authority  of  the  Bible 
sufficiently  great  to  be  the  rule  of  faith  and  practice.  But  this 
complaint  is  without  justification,  for  it  is  not  necessary  to 
maintain  that  the  Bible  is  the  only  authority  in  matters  of  re¬ 
ligion,  or  the  only  great  fountain  of  divine  authority,  or  the 
only  channel  of  divine  guidance,  in  order  to  maintain  consist¬ 
ently  that  Holy  Scripture  is  the  rule  of  faith  and  practice. 
May  not  the  light  of  nature  have  divine  authority?  Listen  to 
the  Confession : 

“  Although  the  light  of  nature  and  the  works  of  creation  and  providence 
do  so  far  manifest  the  greatness  and  power  of  God,  as  to  leave  men  in¬ 
excusable”  (I.  1). 

If  the  light  of  nature  so  manifest  the  greatness  and  power 
of  God — does  it  not  bear  divine  authority? 

Listen  to  Holy  Scripture : 

“For  when  the  Gentiles  which  have  not  the  law,  do  by  nature  the  things 
contained  in  the  law,  these,  having  not  the  law,  are  a  law  unto  them¬ 
selves,  which  show  the  work  of  the  law  written  in  their  hearts,  their 
conscience  also  bearing  witness  and  their  thoughts  the  meanwhile  accus¬ 
ing  or  else  excusing  one  another  ”  (Rom.  i.  19,  20) . 

There  is  a  divine  law  in  the  heart  and  conscience  of  men. 
Paul  here  teaches  that  this  law  is  divine,  but  it  is  not  infallible. 

Is  it  a  necessary  consequence  that  “  the  rule”  should  be  “  the 
only  great  fountain  of  divine  authority?”  I  claim  that  the 
Reason  is  a  great  fountain  of  divine  authority  and  yet  not  a 
rule  of  faith  and  practice.  I  shall  explain  this  further  on.  But 
I  am  not  obliged  to  explain  it.  It  is  the  duty  of  the  prosecu¬ 
tion  to  prove  that  there  is  irreconcilable  conflict  here.  They 
do  not  propose  this  in  their  charge.  They  have  not  proffered 
any  evidence  of  it.  They  have  simply  assumed  it,  and  they  have  * 
asked  you  to  take  this  leap  over  a  chasm  of  difference  in 
order  to  give  an  illogical  verdict. 


THE  REASON 


45 


III 

THE  REASON 

We  have  tested  all  the  proofs  given  by  the  prosecution  from 
the  Westminster  standards  and  have  seen  that  they  do  not 
sustain  the  thesis  of  the  prosecution;  but  rather  bear  witness 
against  them.  Let  me  now  call  your  attention  to  the  great 
change  that  has  taken  place  in  the  doctrine  of  the  Reason  since 
the  17th  century. 

Christian  philosophy  has  made  rapid  strides  forward  since 
the  Westminster  Confession  was  framed.  The  Cambridge 
Platonists,  many  of  whom  were  pupils  of  the  Westminster 
divines,  led  the  way  in  this  great  movement.  The  result  has 
been  that  the  human  reason  has  gained  a  place  in  Christian 
theology  that  it  could  not  have  had  before.  How  can  we  as 
Christian  scholars  go  back  to  the  psychology  and  metaphysics 
of  the  Westminster  divines?  Who  will  venture  to  ignore  the 
history  of  modern  philosophy,  or  the  achievements  that  have 
been  made  in  the  field  of  theology  in  the  long  conflict  with 
Deism,  Rationalism,  and  Agnosticism?  The  conscience  has 
assumed  a  vastly  higher  place  in  Christian  ethics.  The  Meta¬ 
physical  Categories  have  been  more  correctly  defined  and  ex¬ 
plained.  The  Religious  Feeling  has  emerged  as  an  original 
endowment  of  man  which  lies  at  the  roots  of  his  religious 
nature.  The  witness  of  the  Christian  consciousness  is  of 
immense  consequence  to  Christian  theology.  The  Reason  is 
acknowledged  to  be  the  greatest  endowment  God  has  given  to 
man.  It  is  the  holy  of  holies  of  human  nature,  the  presence 
chamber  of  God  wuthin  the  soul,  into  which  the  divine  Spirit 
enters  when  He  would  influence  the  man,  and  in  which  our 
Saviour  dwells  when  He  would  make  the  man  altogether  His 
own.  We  shall  admit  that  the  Westminster  Confession  is 
altogether  inadequate  in  its  doctrine  of  the  Reason.  As  I  said 
some  years  ago,  “  The  Reason,  the  Conscience,  and  the  Religious 
Feeling,  all  of  which  have  arisen  during  these  discussions  of  the 
last  century,  into  a  light  and  vigor  unknown  and  unanticipated 
at  the  Reformation,  should  not  be  antagonized  the  one  with  the 
other,  or  with  the  Spirit  of  God  ”  (“  Biblical  Study,  ”  p.  138) .  The 


46 


THE  DEFENCE  OF  PROFESSOR  BRIGGS 


divine  Spirit  uses  all  these  forms  of  the  Reason  in  His  influence 
upon  men,  making  them  so  many  streams  of  the  fountain  of  au¬ 
thority  which  He  causes  to  burst  forth  from  the  innermost  soul  of 
man.  The  letters  between  Antony  Tuckney  and  his  pupil  Ben¬ 
jamin  Whichcote  show  how  much  this  venerable  divine  feared 
the  use  of  the  Reason  by  the  Cambridge  school  in  the  17th  cen¬ 
tury.  This  attitude  of  Tuckney  is  assumed  by  conservatives  in 
every  generation.  The  same  class  of  men  show  similar  fears  at  the 
present  time.  But  as  each  generation  of  scholars  has  overcome 
the  opposition  of  their  times  and  shown  such  fears  to  be  ground¬ 
less,  as  due  in  part  to  old  age  and  in  part  to  the  rigidity  of 
opinions  in  some  minds,  and  in  part  to  a  natural  reluctance  to 
accept  the  new  with  its  consequences  of  change  and  uncer¬ 
tainties  of  result — so  the  conservatives  of  our  generation  will 
be  overcome  and  their  fears  will  ere  long  prove  to  be  ghosts  of 
their  own  fashioning  and  illusions  of  their  own  creation. 

There  is  no  barrier  whatever  in  the  Westminster  Confession 
to  this  use  of  the  Reason  as  a  great  fountain  of  divine  authority. 
The  Confession  does  not  unfold  the  doctrine  of  the  light  of  the 
Logos,  or  the  mode  by  which  the  Holy  Spirit  regenerates  and 
sanctifies  children,  idiots,  and  redeemed  pagans  apart  from 
Bible  and  Church — it  does  not  describe  the  activities  of  the 
Holy  Spirit  in  the  forms  of  the  Reason.  But  that  does  not 
justify  us  in  shutting  our  eyes  to  new  light  and  new  evidence 
on  this  important  doctrine.  Our  subscription  protects  our 
liberty  in  all  matters  not  defined  by  the  Confession.  Here  is 
the  open  field  of  extra-confessional  doctrine  in  which  the 
Church  has  not  given  its  decision  and  where,  if  it  be  ready  to 
decide,  it  must  make  its  decision  in  the  constitutional  way  by 
revision  overtures  to  the  presbyteries.  “The  Westminster 
Confession  opens  the  gates  to  this  doctrine  when  it  represents 
that  the  divine  Spirit  ‘works  when,  and  where,  and  how  he 
pleaseth,  ’  and  it  does  not  exclude  the  light  of  the  Logos  by  its 
denial  of  the  sufficiency  of  the  light  of  Nature.  The  authority 
of  the  light  of  Nature  is  one  thing,  the  authority  of  the  light 
of  Grace  is  another  thing.  The  authority  of  the  natural  Reason 
is  one  thing,  the  authority  of  the  Reason  as  informed  by  the 
divine  Spirit  is  another  thing.  The  sufficiency  of  the  light  of 
Nature  is  a  doctrinal  error,  but  the  sufficiency  of  the  Light  that 


THE  REASON 


47 


shines  forth  from  the  divine  countenance  in  the  presence  cham¬ 
ber  of  the  Reason,  through  the  religious  feeling  and  the  con¬ 
science,  is  one  of  the  grandest  doctrines  of  the  Bible,  of  history, 
and  of  human  experience.” 

I. — Positive  Evidence  from  the  Confession 

We  have  shown  that  there  is  nothing  in  the  Westminster 
Confession  of  Faith  which  contravenes  the  doctrine  that  the 
Reason  is  a  great  fountain  of  divine  authority.  We  shall  now 
show  that  the  Confession  distinctly  recognizes  the  Reason  as  a 
great  fountain  of  divine  authority.  The  prosecution  shut  their 
eyes  to  seven  chapters  of  the  Confession  (12,  13,  14,  16,  18,  20, 
26)  when  they  represent  that  my  doctrine  of  the  Reason  is 
erroneous.  In  their  original  charges  they  state  that  I  “  strike 
at  the  vitals  of  religion”  in  teaching  that  the  Reason  is  a  great 
fountain  of  divine  authority.  I  do  indeed  “  strike  at  the  vitals 
of  religion,”  but  in  a  sense  quite  different  from  that  in  their 
minds,  for  this  doctrine  so  strikes  at  the  vitals  of  religion 
that  there  can  he  no  vital  religion  without  it.  It  does  indeed 
enter  into  the  very  life  of  the  religion  of  Jesus  Christ.  It 
strikes  at  the  harriers  of  dead  orthodoxy  and  barren  eccle- 
siasticism  and  strikes  through  them  to  the  fountain-head  of 
Christian  Life. 

(a)  There  can  be  no  such  thing  as  Effectual  Calling  unless  * 
the  Reason  is  a  great  fountain  of  divine  authority.  The 
Westminster  Confession  teaches  that — 

“All  those  whom  God  hath  predestinated  unto  life,  and  those  only,  he 
is  pleased,  in  his  appointed  and  accepted  time,  effectually  to  call,  by  his 
word  and  Spirit,  out  of  that  state  of  sin  and  death,  in  which  they  are  by 
nature,  to  grace  and  salvation  by  Jesus  Christ ;  enlightening  their  minds 
spiritually  and  savingly,  to  understand  the  things  of  God ;  taking  awTay 
their  heart  of  stone,  and  giving  unto  them  an  heart  of  flesh ;  renewing 
their  wills  and  by  his  almighty  power  determining  them  to  that  which 
is  good ;  and  effectually  drawing  them  to  Jesus  Christ,  yet  so  as  they 
come  most  freely,  being  made  willing  by  his  grace”  (X.  1) . 

In  effectual  calling  the  Holy  Spirit  acts  upon  the  soul  of  man. 
The  call  is  by  the  divine  word  and  the  divine  Spirit;  always  by 
the  di  vdne  Spirit  but  not  always  by  the  divine  word ;  but  whether 


48 


THE  DEFENCE  OF  PROFESSOR  BRIGGS 


the  divine  word  is  used  or  not,  in  any  case  it  is  the  divine  Spirit 
who  enlightens  the  mind  to  understand  the  things  of  God; 
gives  a  new  heart  of  flesh  for  the  old  heart  of  stone ;  renews  the 
will,  determining  it  by  almighty  power  to  that  which  is  good. 
All  these  operations  of  the  divine  Spirit  change  the  mind,  the 
heart,  the  will,  the  constituent  parts  of  the  inner  man.  Does 
any  one  suppose  that  the  divine  Spirit  enlightens  the  mind 
without  using  the  Reason?  Can  the  heart  be  transformed  from 
a  hard  stone  to  sensitive  flesh  without  using  the  Religious 
Feeling?  Can  the  will  be  determined  to  that  which  is  good 
without  using  the  Conscience?  If  mind,  heart,  and  will  are 
changed  in  effectual  calling,  then  Reason,  Religious  Feeling, 
and  Conscience  are  quickened  with  the  pulsations  of  the  divine 
Spirit  and  animated  with  new  life.  When  the  mind  is  savingly 
enlightened  by  the  Spirit  of  God,  how  can  this  be  otherwise 
than  by  the  Spirit  of  God  speaking  with  divine  authority 
through  the  forms  of  the  Reason,  so  that  the  mind  understands 
the  things  of  God  on  the  authority  of  God?  When  the  will  is 
renewed  and  determined  by  the  divine  Spirit  to  that  which  is 
good,  how  otherwise  can  it  be  determined  than  by  a  divine  au¬ 
thority  in  the  conscience  overcoming  every  doubt  as  to  the  good, 
and  every  disinclination  to  the  good? 

In  effectual  calling,  the  calling  is  effectual  simply  because 
the  Holy  Spirit  enters  the  human  Reason  with  divine  energy  to 
work  through  the  Reason  effectually  in  all  the  avenues  of  human 
nature.  By  effectual  calling  the  redeemed  enter  into  a  new 
world  in  which  divine  authority  flows  through  the  fountain  of 
the  Reason  to  govern  and  enrich  all  their  lives. 

(b)  There  can  be  no  such  thing  as  Sanctification  unless  the 
Reason  is  a  great  fountain  of  divine  authority.  The  Westmin¬ 
ster  Confession  teaches  that — 

“  They  who  are  effectually  called  and  regenerated,  having  a  new  heart 
and  a  new  spirit  created  in  them,  are  further  sanctified,  really  and  per¬ 
sonally,  through  the  virtue  of  Christ’s  death  and  resurrection,  by  his 
word  and  Spirit  dwelling  in  them”  (XIII.  1) . 

Sanctification  is  accomplished  by  Christ’s  word  and  Spirit 
dwelling  in  them — not  by  Christ’s  word  alone,  but  also  by  the 
indwelling  Spirit ;  by  the  word  and  Spirit  usually  in  Christian 


THE  REASON 


49 


lands;  but  by  the  Spirit  always  in  every  land  and  in  every 
redeemed  person.  By  the  word  dwelling  in  us  we  understand 
not  only  Holy  Scripture  engraved  on  the  memory,  but  appro¬ 
priated  by  the  soul  and  transformed  into  principles  of  holy 
living  and  doing.  How  then  shall  we  understand  the  indwell¬ 
ing  Spirit?  Where  does  the  holy  Spirit  dwell  if  not  at  the  cen¬ 
tral  point  of  our  human  nature,  and  where  else  can  that  be  for 
any  intelligent  person  than  in  the  Reason,  where  the  conscience  is 
taught  to  speak  the  categorical  imperative  which  is  now  truly 
a  word  divine ;  where  the  religious  feeling  is  stimulated  to  holy 
impulses  which  are  as  the  breath  of  God  to  men ;  where  the 
Reason  is  informed  with  holy  thoughts  which  are  truth  from 
heaven ;  and  where  the  divine  presence  fills  the  soul  with  the 
assurance  of  a  divine  authority  which  is  no  bondage,  but  peace 
and  joy?  There  can  be  no  sanctification  unless  the  Holy  Spirit 
dwell  in  the  Reason  and  so  by  divine  authority  govern  the  life 
and  conduct.  This  was  distinctly  taught  by  the  old  Puritans 
in  their  pursuit  of  personal  holiness.  It  was  imbedded  by  them 
in  the  Westminster  Confession.  This  Puritan  principle  was 
revived  by  Wesley  and  made  by  him  one  of  the  cardinal  prin¬ 
ciples  of  Methodism.  He  committed  the  sad  mistake  of  inclos¬ 
ing  it  in  inadequate  and  erroneous  statements  of  the  doctrines 
of  sin  and  of  grace,  and  yet  it  has  proved  a  life-giving  force  to 
that  great  organization.  This  principle  has  been  again  here 
asserted  with  power  by  the  Salvation  Army. 

It  is  very  significant  at  the  close  of  our  century,  that  we  have 
a  great  military  organization  outside  the  Christian  Church, 
without  a  ministry  and  without  the  sacraments,  which  seeks 
above  all  things  the  salvation  of  the  lost  and  endeavors  to  im¬ 
part  a  full  salvation  to  all  people.  The  Salvation  Army  has  be¬ 
come  one  of  the  most  powerful  religious  organizations  in  the 
world.  It  has  the  presence  of  Christ  and  the  power  of  the 
Holy  Spirit  and  the  blessing  of  God  the  Father  in  its  redemp¬ 
tive  work.  Like  the  Society  of  Friends,  the  Army  claims 
immediate  communion  with  Christ.  It  uses  the  Bible  but  it 
does  not  use  the  Church.  It  uses  the  Reason  and  especially  the 
Religious  Feeling,  still  more  than  it  uses  the  Bible  in  order  to 
direct  union  with  the  Holy  Spirit  and  communion  with  Christ. 
You  will  find  these  statements  among  its  orders  for  field  officers : 

4 


50 


THE  DEFENCE  OF  PROFESSOR  BRIGGS 


“  The  F.  O.  must  have  been  converted  or  changed  by  the  power  of  the 
Holy  Spirit  from  the  old,  worldly,  selfish,  sinful  nature  to  the  new, 
holy,  heavenly,  divine  nature ;  and  not  only  must  he  thus  have  received 
a  new  heart,  but  he  must  have  the  Holy  Spirit  living  in  that  heart,  pos¬ 
sessing  it  and  working  through  it,  to  will  and  to  do  the  good  pleasure  of 
God  ”  (Section  II.  1) . 

“  {d)  He  has  been  changed  by  the  Divine  power  into  the  image  of  God. 
He  has  been  remodelled  after  the  pattern  of  the  second  Adam,  having 
been  bom  again  of  the  Spirit  of  God,  so  that  now  he  has  become  a  par¬ 
taker  of  the  Divine  nature. 

“  (e)  He  is  possessed  and  controlled  by  God.  His  body  is  the  dwelling- 
place  of  the  Holy  Spirit.  As  God  hath  said,  ‘  I  will  dwell  in  them  and 
walk  in  them.  I  will  be  their  God  and  they  shall  be  my  people  ’  (I.  Cor. 
vi.  16).  Consequently  the  will  of  God  is  done  in  him,  and  through  him, 
and  by  him.  He  lives  the  same  kind  of  life  and  is  actuated  by  the  same 
purpose  as  God  Himself  ;  that  is,  a  life  of  benevolence.  God  lives  for  the 
welfare  of  the  universe ;  the  F.  O.  lives  for  the  happiness  of  mankind.  ” 

I  clo  not  approve  of  all  the  statements  of  General  Booth  and 
his  officers  with  regard  to  sanctification,  but  in  the  language 
quoted  they  state  the  Biblical  ideal  and  the  Puritan  ideal  of 
our  Westminster  Confession.  Christian  life  in  the  Presbyterian 
Church  has  too  often  not  been  in  accordance  with  this  idea.  Our 
dogmatic  divines  have  neglected  the  doctrine  of  sanctification. 
Our  ministry,  trained  for  the  most  part  in  speculative  dogma 
rather  than  in  a  Biblical  faith,  to  a  scholastic  theology  rather 
than  to  a  W estminster  theology,  have  failed  to  honor  sufficiently 
the  indwelling  Spirit  of  God.  It  would  seem  that  God  has 
raised  up  the  Salvation  Army  to  stimulate  us  all  to  seek  a  full 
salvation  and  to  live  Christian  lives  which  are  directed  by  the 
Holy  Spirit  dwelling  in  the  Reason  and  sending  forth  streams 
of  divine  authority  through  all  the  activities  of  our  nature  in 
order  to  make  our  souls  like  a  well- watered  garden,  a  fruitful 
paradise  of  God. 

(c)  There  can  be  no  such  thing  as  Saving  Faith  unless  the 
Reason  is  a  great  fountain  of  divine  authority.  The  West¬ 
minster  Confession  teaches  that — 

“The  grace  of  faith,  whereby  the  elect  are  enabled  to  believe  to  the 
saving  of  their  souls,  is  the  work  of  the  Spirit  of  Christ  in  their  hearts ; 
and  is  ordinarily  wrought  by  the  ministry  of  the  word :  by  which  also, 
and  by  the  administration  of  the  sacraments,  and  prayer,  it  is  increased 
and  strengthened  ”  (XIV.  1) . 


THE  REASON 


51 


This  section  teaches  that  the  grace  of  faith  is  the  work  of  the 
Spirit  of  Christ  in  the  hearts  of  the  elect,  whereby  they  are 
enabled  to  believe.  If  faith  is  wrought  in  our  hearts  by  the 
divine  Spirit,  can  it  be  wrought  in  any  other  way^than  through 
the  Reason?  Can  there  be  any  faith  in  which  the  conscience, 
the  religious  feeling,  and  the  Reason  do  not  share? 

“The  principal  acts  of  saving  faith  are,  accepting,  receiving,  and  rest¬ 
ing  upon  Christ  alone  for  justification,  sanctification,  and  eternal  redemp¬ 
tion  ”  (XIY.  2). 

Can  there  be  any  “  receiving  and  resting  upon  Christ  ”  if  the 
Reason  exclude  Christ,  if  the  conscience  disapprove  of  Christ, 
if  the  religious  feeling  shrink  from  Christ?  It  is  because  the 
Holy  Spirit  lights  up  the  chambers  of  the  soul,  it  is  because 
Jesus  Christ  shines  in  our  hearts  with  light  divine  that  we  see 
Him  and  know  our  Saviour,  as  we  see  and  know  the  sun  when 
he  rises  at  the  break  of  day.  It  is  through  the  effusion  of  divine 
energy,  the  infusion  of  divine  life,  the  suffusion  of  divine  light, 
that  sinful  man  is  born  of  God  to  live  in  the  Spirit  and  know 
his  Saviour.  As  an  old  Puritan  says : 

“  Faith  then  is  the  gift  of  God,  and  the  act  of  man :  a  wonderfull  and 
supernaturall  gift  of  God,  and  a  lively  motion  of  the  heart  renewed  by 
grace,  and  powerfully  moved  by  the  Spirit.  The  power  to  beleeve,  and 
will  to  use  that  power,  is  of  God :  But  the  act  of  the  will  in  resting  upon 
Christ  is  mans.  It  is  man  that  beleeveth,  but  it  is  God  only  and  al¬ 
together  that  inableth,  stirreth  up,  putteth  forward,  and  inclineth  the  heart 
to  beleeve.  By  Gods  enlightening  man  seeth,  by  his  teaching  he  under¬ 
stands  :  and  the  Lord  inclining  his  will,  hee  willeth,  embraceth,  possesseth 
and  keepeth  Christ  with  all  blessings  promised  in  him.  So  that  faith  is 
the  motion  of  mans  heart  wrought  in  him  by  the  Spirit  of  God.  Even 
as  a  wheele,  which  of  itselfe  cannot  move,  yet  being  moved  of  another, 
doth  move ;  whose  motion  though  but  one,  is  said  to  be  the  motion  of 
the  mover,  and  of  the  thing  moved ;  so  faith  is  nothing  but  the  action  of 
God  in  man,  but  considered  in  a  diverse  manner  it  is  both  the  act  of  God 
and  man  :  as  wrought  by  God  in  man,  it  is  the  work  of  the  Lord ;  as  the 
motion  of  man,  his  heart  being  moved  of  God,  it  is  the  act  of  man. 
For  the  action  of  man  in  beleeving  with  the  heart,  is  nothing  but  his 
knowing  and  acknowledging  of  things,  by  Gods  making  him  know  and 
acknowledge  them  ;  his  apprehending,  wdlling,  chusing,  embracing,  and 
retaining  them,  by  Gods  making  him  to  apprehend,  will,  chuse,  embrace, 
and  retaine  them”  (“A  Treatise  of  Faith,”  Ball.,  pp.  11,  12). 


52 


THE  DEFENCE  OF  PROFESSOR  BRIGGS 


(d)  There  can  be  no  such  thing  as  Good  W orks  well  pleasing 
to  God,  unless  the  Reason  is  a  great  fountain  of  divine  author¬ 
ity.  The  Westminster  Confession  teaches  that — 

“  Tlieir  ability  to  do  good  works  is  not  at  all  of  themselves,  but  wholly 
from  the  Spirit  of  Christ.  And  that  they  may  be  enabled  thereunto,  be¬ 
sides  the  graces  they  have  already  received,  there  is  required  an  actual 
influence  of  the  same  Holy  Spirit  to  work  in  them  to  will  and  to  do  of 
his  good  pleasure  ”  (XVI.  3). 

In  order  to  good  works  it  is  therefore  necessary  that  the  Holy 
Spirit  should  “work  in  the  believer  to  will  and  to  do  of  his 
good  pleasure.”  If  the  Holy  Spirit  work  in  a  man,  how  else 
shall  He  work  than  in  the  forms  of  the  Reason?  The  Holy 
Spirit  not  only  works  in  the  man,  but  He  dwells  in  him  while 
working,  in  his  innermost  soul.  And  where  can  the  Holy 
Spirit  dwell  within  us  save  in  the  forms  of  the  Reason? 

(e)  There  can  be  no  such  thing  as  Assurance  of  Grace  unless 
the  Reason  is  a  great  fountain  of  divine  authority.  The  West¬ 
minster  Confession  teaches  that — 

“This  certainty  is  not  a  bare  conjectural  and  probable  persuasion, 
grounded  upon  a  fallible  hope ;  but  an  infallible  assurance  of  faith, 
founded  upon  the  divine  truth  of  the  promises  of  salvation,  the  inward 
evidence  of  those  graces  unto  which  these  promises  are  made,  the  testimony 
of  the  Spirit  of  adoption  witnessing  with  our  spirits  that  we  are  the 
children  of  God :  which  Spirit  is  the  earnest  of  our  inheritance,  whereby 
we  are  sealed  to  the  day  of  redemption  ”  (XVIII.  2) . 

The  “  inward  evidence  of  these  graces,”  “  the  testimony  of  the 
Spirit  of  adoption  witnessing  with  our  spirits,  ”  what  is  this  ex¬ 
cept  the  witness  of  the  Holy  Spirit  within  the  forms  of  the 
Reason? 

“  A  Methodist  minister  some  years  ago  insisted  to  me  that  Presbyterians 
did  not  believe  in  the  doctrine  of  assurance.  I  could  hardly  convince 
him  by  reading  to  him  the  statement  of  the  Confession  of  Faith.  He 
said  that  he  had  never  met  a  Presbyterian  who  believed  the  doctrine ; 
that  Presbyterians  only  hoped  they  were  saved,  but  were  never  assured 
of  their  salvation.  My  observations  and  inquiries  have  led  me  to  the 
opinion  that  in  the  main  the  Methodist  minister  was  correct.  The  min¬ 
istry  and  people  of  the  Presbyterian  Church  have  not  as  a  rule  sought 
assurance  of  grace  and  salvation  as  it  has  ever  been  their  privilege  and 
duty  to  do.  The  Reformed  doctrine,  that  ‘this  infallible  assurance  doth 
not  so  belong  to  the  essence  of  faith,  but  that  a  true  believer  may  wait 


THE  REASON 


53 


long,  and  conflict  with  many  difficulties  before  he  be  partaker  of  it’ 
(XVIII.  3) ,  has  induced  Presbyterians  to  rest  content  with  the  posses¬ 
sion  of  simple  justifying  faith.  They  have  not  realized  the  grace  of 
adoption  and  ‘the  testimony  of  the  Spirit  of  adoption;’  they  have  not  suf¬ 
ficiently  advanced  in  the  grace  of  sanctification  and  so  have  not  the  in¬ 
ward  evidences  of  those  graces  unto  which  these  promises  are  made  ” 
(“Whither?”  pp.  157,  158). 

If  the  Westminster  doctrine  of  the  Assurance  of  Grace  were 
really  a  part  of  the  living  faith  of  the  Presbyterian  Church,  no 
one  could  accuse  me  of  heresy  for  teaching  that  the  Reason  is  a 
great  fountain  of  divine  authority,  for  let  any  one  consider  what 
is  involved  in  this  doctrine.  It  is  the  assurance  of  a  believer, 
the  making  him  certain  that  he  is  a  child  of  God.  This  comes 
by  inward  evidence  within  the  soul  of  man,  not  merely  by  out¬ 
ward  evidence  from  Bible  or  Church.  It  is  the  Holy  Spirit 
witnessing  with  our  spirits — Spirit  with  spirit — not  simply  the 
Holy  Spirit  witnessing  through  Holy  Scripture  and  Holy  Sac¬ 
rament.  It  is  the  direct  and  immediate  contact  of  the  Holy 
Spirit  with  the  spirit  of  the  believer — a  contact  which  gives 
certainty.  What  can  give  certainty  except  divine  evidence? 
What  can  assure  our  souls  but  divine  authority?  The  Confes¬ 
sion  distinctly  teaches  that  the  Holy  Spirit  is  present  to  the 
spirit  of  man  with  divine  authority,  and  that  presence  is  within 
the  man,  in  his  inmost  being,  his  higher  spiritual  nature. 
Where  is  that  presence  if  not  in  the  forms  of  the  Reason? 

(/)  There  can  be  no  true  Liberty  of  Conscience  unless  the 
Reason  is  a  great  fountain  of  divine  authority.  The  Confession 
states  the  great  practical  principle  of  Puritanism  as  follows : 

“  God  alone  is  Lord  of  the  conscience,  and  hath  left  it  free  from  the 
doctrines  and  commandments  of  men  which  are  in  anything  contrary  to 
his  word,  or  beside  it  in  matters  of  faith  or  worship.  So  that  to  believe 
such  doctrines,  or  to  obey  such  commandments  out  of  conscience  is  to 
betray  true  liberty  of  conscience ;  and  the  requiring  an  implicit  faith, 
and  an  absolute  and  blind  obedience,  is  to  destroy  liberty  of  conscience, 
and  reason  also  ”  (XX.  2) . 

God  is  the  Lord  of  the  conscience.  The  conscience  has  no 
other  Lord.  The  conscience  is  especially  the  place  where  God 
is  Lord  and  through  which  He  exercises  His  divine  authority. 
Liberty  of  conscience  is  essential  to  true  religious  life  and 


54 


THE  DEFENCE  OF  PROFESSOR  BRIGGS 


activity.  No  “  implicit  faith  ”  is  required.  No  blind  obedience 
is  lawful.  The  Christian  conscience  refuses  to  close  its  eyes. 
It  ever  looks  upward  for  authority  divine,  to  enjoy  the  vision 
of  God.  Conscience  refuses  bondage,  it  is  the  free-born  daugh¬ 
ter  of  God.  True  religion  appeals  to  the  conscience,  the  faith¬ 
ful  monitor  of  God  within  the  breast.  Let  the  conscience  rule 
the  man  and  God  will  rule  him.  Bind  him  to  blind  obedience, 
any  external  authority  whatever,  whether  church  or  state, 
whether  system  of  dogma  or  letter  of  Scripture,  and  you  ob¬ 
struct  the  dominion  of  God  in  the  man.  The  conscience  must 
remain  free  in  order  to  healthful  religious  life.  The  Lord  of 
the  conscience  must  speak  with  divine  authority  through  the 
conscience  in  order  that  the  life  may  be  a  holy  life.  If  the  Lord 
of  glory  inhabit  the  conscience,  make  it  His  throne  within  the 
man,  all  its  monitions  will  be  divine.  This  is  the  ideal  of  lib¬ 
erty  of  conscience  which  every  Christian  should  seek.  You 
shatter  this  ideal  for  yourselves,  if  you  say  it  is  heresy  to  teach 
that  the  Reason — explaining  Reason  as  the  conscience — is  a 
great  fountain  of  divine  authority. 

(g)  There  can  be  no  real  communion  with  Christ,  unless  the 
Reason  is  a  great  fountain  of  divine  authority.  The  West¬ 
minster  Confession  teaches : 

“  M\  saints  that  are  united  to  Jesus  Christ  their  head,  by  his  Spirit 
and  by  faith,  have  fellowship  with  him  in  his  graces,  sufferings,  death, 
resurrection,  and  glory :  and,  being  united  to  one  another  in  love,  they 
have  communion  in  each  other’s  gifts  and  graces ;  and  are  obliged  to  the 
performance  of  such  duties,  public  and  private,  as  do  conduce  to  their 
mutual  good,  both  in  the  inward  and  outward  man  ”  (XXVI.  1) . 

The  bond  between  the  saints  is  a  bond  of  faith  tied  by  the 
Holy  Spirit.  The  Church  and  the  Bible  often  mediate  between 
the  appropriating  faith  and  the  bestowing  Holy  Spirit;  but 
they  do  not  take  the  place  of  either  the  Holy  Spirit  or  of  faith. 
Faith  lays  hold  of  Christ,  the  direct  object  of  the  soul’s  activ¬ 
ities.  Faith  so  unites  to  Christ  as  to  give  fellowship  in  the 
graces  of  Christ  and  in  the  life  of  Christ  from  His  incarnation 
to  His  reign  and  second  advent.  This  faith  so  unites  with 
Christ  that  there  is  direct  and  immediate  communion  with 
Him.  Christ  with  irresistible  attraction  draws  faith  to  Him 
and  faith  rests  on  His  breast.  Where  can  faith  and  Christ 


THE  REASON 


55 


meet  save  in  the  Reason?  Faith  does  not  ascend  to  heaven. 
Christ  descends  from  heaven.  Christ  presents  Himself  to  faith 
as  its  appropriate  object,  as  its  source  and  inspiration,  as  the 
ground  of  its  existence  and  its  certainty.  Christ  imparts  cer¬ 
tainty  to  faith  in  this  communion;  where  alone  it  can  be 
imparted,  in  the  forms  of  the  Reason. 

I  called  attention  to  the  neglect  of  these  chapters  of  our  Con¬ 
fession  by  the  traditional  orthodoxy  in  my  “Whither?”  three 
years  ago.  I  said:  “We  have  gone  over  the  eleven  chapters 
that  make  up  the  central  section  of  the  Westminster  Confes¬ 
sion.  We  have  seen  a  general  neglect  of  these  precious  doc¬ 
trines  by  the  Traditional  Orthodoxy.  The  current  orthodoxism 
has  fallen  sadly  short  of  the  Westminster  ideal.  As  it  erred 
by  excessive  definition  in  the  first  eleven  chapters,  it  has  erred 
by  a  general  failure  in  the  second  eleven  chapters,  so  that  the 
Presbyterian  Church  at  the  present  time  is  at  an  angle  with  its 
Confession  of  Faith;  and  subscription  to  the  Westminster  sys¬ 
tem  in  the  historic  sense  is  out  of  the  question”  (p.  162).  I  am 
not  surprised,  therefore,  that  the  prosecution  seem  so  uncon¬ 
scious  of  the  existence  of  these  doctrines  of  our  Confession,  as 
to  suppose  that  I  am  heretical  because  I  subscribe  to  them  and 
teach  them  in  their  historical  meaning.  These  chapters  declare 
me  innocent  and  convict  the  prosecution  of  heresy. 

( g )  In  addition  to  these  seven  chapters  of  our  Confession,  let 
me  call  your  attention  to  two  important  statements  with  refer¬ 
ence  to  the  Reason  in  connection  with  the  doctrine  of  Holy 
Scripture : 

“  The  authority  of  the  IToly  Scriptures,  for  which  it  ought  to  be  be¬ 
lieved  and  obeyed,  dependeth  not  upon  the  testimony  of  any  man  or 
church,  but  wholly  upon  God,  the  author  thereof  ”  (I.  4) . 

“  Our  full  persuasion  and  assurance  of  the  infallible  truth,  and  divine 
authority  thereof,  is  from  the  inward  work  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  bearing 
witness  by  and  with  the  word  in  our  hearts  ”  (I.  5) . 

These  clauses  of  our  Confession  give  the  Reason  a  very  im¬ 
portant  office  in  the  use  of  Holy  Scripture.  Holy  Scripture  is 
in  itself  an  external  means  of  grace.  It  is  necessary  that  the 
grace  contained  therein  should  in  some  way  be  communicated 
to  the  human  soul.  Its  grace  must  be  transferred  from  the 
written  page  and  the  speaking  voice  into  the  heart  of  man.  By 


56 


THE  DEFENCE  OF  PROFESSOR  BRIGGS 


the  eye  and  the  ear  it  approaches  man.  How  shall  it  gain  a 
lodgment  in  his  mind  and  transform  his  heart?  The  Confes¬ 
sion  represents  that  only  the  Holy  Spirit  can  accomplish  this  by 
His  inward  work  in  our  hearts,  that  is,  working  in  our  con¬ 
sciences  and  in  our  religious  feelings,  in  our  reason.  The  West¬ 
minster  Confession,  therefore,  in  eight  chapters  teaches  that  the 
Reason  is  a  great  fountain  of  divine  authority,  and  that  there 
can  be  no  impartation  of  the  grace  of  God  to  men  and  no  appro¬ 
priation  of  the  grace  of  God  by  men,  unless  this  grace  enters 
with  divine  authority  into  the  forms  of  the  Reason.  You  cannot 
deny  this  doctrine  without  destroying  the  great  central  doctrines 
of  our  Confession  of  Faith. 

II. — Evidence  from  Holy  Scripture 

We  have  consumed  so  much  time  in  our  proofs  from  the 
Confession,  that  we  hesitate  to  consume  any  more  in  the  argu¬ 
ment  from  Holy  Scripture.  And  yet  it  seems  necessary  under 
present  circumstances  to  give  at  least  an  outline  of  this  argu¬ 
ment. 

There  can  be  no  doubt  that  the  highest  forms  of  prophecy 
under  the  Old  Testament  dispensation,  and  the  New  Testament 
as  well,  originated  by  the  influence  of  the  Holy  Spirit  speaking 
to  holy  men  through  the  forms  of  their  reason.  If  there  is 
anything  supernatural  in  Biblical  prophecy,  that  prophecy,  at 
least  in  a  measure,  must  have  originated  from  the  direct  contact 
of  the  divine  Spirit  with  the  human  spirit.  Even  in  the  lower 
forms  of  prophecy,  in  the  ecstatic  state,  when  the  man  lies 
prostrate  on  the  ground,  or  has  his  eyes  closed  and  his  senses 
shut  to  the  external  world,  the  divine  Spirit  gives  the  holy  im¬ 
pulse,  the  insight,  and  the  foresight,  those  great  prophetic  en¬ 
dowments  which  enable  the  prophet  to  declare  the  things  of 
God.  How  much  more  is  this  the  case  in  those  holy  writers 
who  have  given  us  the  sacred  Scriptures.  Unless  they  were 
holy  penmen  with  extraordinary  prophetic  gifts,  with  super¬ 
natural  endowments  communicated  by  divine  authority  speak¬ 
ing  in  the  forms  of  the  Reason,  there  is  no  basis  for  the  divine 
authority  of  Scripture  at  all.  The  Confession  recognizes  this 
when  it  says : 


THE  REASON 


57 


“Therefore  it  pleased  the  Lord,  at  sundry  times  and  in  divers  man¬ 
ners,  to  reveal  himself,  and  to  declare  that  his  will  unto  his  church  ” 
(I.  1). 

When  therefore  I  say  that  “  the  Reason  is  historically  a  great 
fountain  of  divine  authority,”  I  am  justified  by  the  history  of 
divine  revelation  until  the  close  of  the  canon,  whether  the  state¬ 
ment  he  true  with  regard  to  later  times  or  not.  On  this  account 
I  claim  that  the  first  charge  should  he  thrown  out  of  court. 
But  inasmuch  as  I  claim  that  this  divine  authority  in  the 
forms  of  the  Reason  extends  to  the  present  age,  as  for  example 
in  the  case  of  Martineau,  I  will  at  once  proceed  to  set  forth  my 
Biblical  authority  for  this  opinion.  Let  me,  however,  say  at 
once  that  I  subscribe  to  this  statement  of  the  Confession :  “  These 
former  ways  of  God’s  revealing  his  will  unto  his  people  being  now 
ceased”  (I.  1).  Nothing  has  been  added  to  the  canon  of  Holy 
Scripture  by  divine  revelation  since  the  days  of  the  apostles, 
and  it  seems  altogether  improbable  that  anything  will  be  added 
in  the  future.  The  question  is,  therefore,  whether  there  is  any 
divine  authority  in  the  forms  of  the  Reason  for  other  purposes  ' 
than  formulating  inspired  writings  for  a  canon  of  Holy  Scrip¬ 
ture. 

We  appeal  to  the  statements  of  Holy  Scripture  respecting 
those  outside  the  visible  kingdom  of  God,  and  therefore  ex¬ 
cluded  from  contact  with  Holy  Scripture  and  Church.  What 
shall  we  say  to  the  preaching  of  Paul? 

“And  he  made  of  one  every  nation  of  men  for  to  dwell  on  all  the  face 
of  the  earth,  having  determined  their  appointed  seasons,  and  the  bounds 
of  their  habitation  ;  that  they  should  seek  God,  if  haply  they  might  feel 
after  him,  and  find  him,  though  he  is  not  far  from  each  one  of  us :  for 
in  him  we  live,  and  move,  and  have  our  being ;  as  certain  even  of  your 
own  poets  have  said,  For  we  are  also  his  offspring  ”  (Acts  xvii.  26-28). 

Do  none  of  these  offspring  of  God  among  the  heathen  feel  after 
Him?  Do  those  who  feel  fail  to  find  Him?  Do  none  of  those, 
the  root  of  whose  being  is  in  God,  look  to  the  root  and  become 
conscious  of  that  fountain  of  life  springing  up  within  them? 
Or  are  these  words  of  Paul  a  fancy,  incapable  of  realization, 
a  dream  which  finds  no  counterpart  in  the  real  heathen  man? 

What  of  the  preaching  of  Peter? 


58 


THE  DEFENCE  OF  PROFESSOR  BRIGGS 


“Of  a  truth  I  perceive  that  God  is  no  respecter  of  persons:  but  in 
every  nation  he  that  feareth  him,  and  worketh  righteousness,  is  accept¬ 
able  to  him  ”  (Acts  x.  34,  35) . 

Are  there  no  God-fearing  men  among  the  nations  who  hold  to 
the  ethnic  religions?  Are  there  none  yvho  give  alms  and  work 
righteousness?  Was  Peter  mistaken?  Does  God  really  respect 
persons  and  reject  a  man  because  he  was  not  born  a  Hebrew  or 
because  he  was  not  educated  in  Christian  lands?  Was  Corne¬ 
lius  the  only  illustration  of  this  profound  utterance?  And  was 
he  accepted  simply  because  he  might  have  been  a  proselyte? 

What  of  the  preaching  of  Jesus? 

“The  men  of  Nineveh  shall  stand  up  in  the  judgment  with  this  genera¬ 
tion,  and  shall  condemn  it :  for  they  repented  at  the  preaching  of  Jonah ; 
and  behold,  a  greater  than  Jonah  is  here.  The  queen  of  the  south  shall 
rise  up  in  the  judgment  with  this  generation,  and  shall  condemn  it :  for 
she  came  from  the  ends  of  the  earth  to  hear  the  wisdom  of  Solomon  ; 
and  behold,  a  greater  than  Solomon  is  here”  (Matt.  xii.  41,  42) . 

If  the  proud  Assyrians,  the  inhabitants  of  Nineveh,  were  not 
excluded  from  repentance  and  redemption  because  they  had  no 
Bible  and  were  hostile  to  the  kingdom  of  Israel,  why  should  any 
other  metropolis  of  the  ethnic  religions  be  excluded  if  they 
repent  in  accordance  with  the  teaching  they  have?  Is  the 
Oriental  queen  the  only  potentate  who  has  found  God  by  wis¬ 
dom  outside  the  kingdom?  True,  the  one  heard  the  preaching 
of  Jonah  and  the  other  the  wisdom  of  Solomon.  But  there  is 
no  evidence  that  either  of  them  accepted  Holy  Scripture  or 
united  with  Holy  Church. 

We  appeal  to  the  promises  of  our  Lord. 

(1)  The  presence  of  Christ  Plimself  is  promised: 

“Where  two  or  three  are  gathered  together  in  my  name,  there  am  I  in 
the  midst  of  them”  (Matt,  xviii.  20). 

“Lo,  I  am  with  you  alway,  even  unto  the  end  of  the  world”  (Matt, 
xxviii.  20). 

“I  will  not  leave  you  desolate:  I  come  unto  you.  Yet  a  little  while, 
and  the  world  beholdeth  me  no  more  ;  but  ye  behold  me  :  because  I  live, 
ye  shall  live  also.  In  that  day  ye  shall  know  that  I  am  in  my  Father, 
and  ye  in  me,  and  I  in  you.  He  that  hath  my  commandments,  and 
keepeth  them,  he  it  is  that  loveth  me :  and  he  that  loveth  me  shall  be 
loved  of  my  Father,  and  I  will  love  him,  and  will  manifest  myself  unto 


THE  REASON 


59 


him.  Judas  (not  Iscariot)  saith  unto  him,  Lord,  what  is  to  come  to 
pass  that  thou  will  manifest  thyself  unto  us,  and  not  unto  the  world  ? 
Jesus  answered  and  said  unto  him,  If  a  man  love  me,  he  will  keep  my 
word :  and  my  Father  will  love  him,  and  we  will  come  unto  him,  and 
make  our  abode  with  him  ”  (John  xiv.  18-24) . 

Jesus  distinctly  promises  His  own  abiding  presence  with  His 
people.  If  we  have  not  so  seen  Christ  and  known  Him,  it  is 
because  we  have  not  lived  in  accordance  with  the  privileges  of 
our  religion. 

(2)  The  presence  of  the  Holy  Spirit  is  promised: 

“And  I  will  pray  the  Father,  and  he  shall  give  you  another  Comforter, 
that  he  may  be  with  you  for  ever ;  even  the  Spirit  of  truth :  whom  the 
world  cannot  receive  ;  for  it  beholdeth  him  not,  neither  knoweth  him : 
ye  know  him  ;  for  he  abideth  with  you  and  shall  be  in  you”  (John  xiv. 
16-18). 

“  Howbeit  when  he,  the  Spirit  of  truth,  is  come,  he  shall  guide  you  into 
all  the  truth :  for  he  shall  not  speak  from  himself ;  but  what  things  so¬ 
ever  he  shall  hear,  these  shall  he  speak :  and  he  shall  declare  unto  you 
the  things  that  are  to  come.  He  shall  glorify  me  :  for  he  shall  take  of 
mine,  and  shall  declare  it  unto  you  ”  (John  xvi.  18,  14) . 

If  we  have  not  the  presence  and  power  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  it 
is  an  evidence  that  we  are  feeble  Christians. 

Consider  the  teachings  of  the  Epistles : 

“  Know  ye  not  that  ye  are  a  temple  of  God,  and  that  the  Spirit  of  God 
dwelleth  in  you?  If  any  man  destroy etli  the  temple  of  God,  him  shall 
God  destroy ;  for  the  temple  of  God  is  holy,  which  temple  ye  are  ” 
(I.  Cor.  iii.  16,  17). 

“  Or  know  ye  not  that  your  body  is  a  temple  of  the  Holy  Ghost  which 
is  in  you,  which  ye  have  from  God?  and  ye  are  not  your  own;  for  ye 
were  bought  with  a  price  :  glorify  God  therefore  in  your  body  ”  (I.  Cor. 
vi.  19,  20). 

“  For  we  preach  not  ourselves,  but  Christ  Jesus  as  Lord,  and  ourselves 
as  your  servants  for  Jesus’  sake.  Seeing  it  is  God,  that  said,  Light  shall 
shine  out  of  darkness,  who  shined  in  our  hearts,  to  give  the  light  of  the 
knowledge  of  the  glory  of  God  in  the  face  of  Jesus  Christ  ”  (II.  Cor. 
iv.  5,  6). 

“For  this  cause  I  bow  my  knees  unto  the  Father,  from  whom  every 
family  in  heaven  and  on  earth  is  named,  that  he  would  grant  you,  ac¬ 
cording  to  the  riches  of  his  glory,  that  ye  may  be  strengthened  with 
power  through  his  Spirit  in  the  inward  man ;  that  Christ  may  dwell  in 


60 


THE  DEFENCE  OF  PROFESSOR  BRIGGS 


your  hearts  through  faith ;  to  the  end  that  ye,  being  rooted  and  grounded 
in  love,  may  be  strong  to  apprehend  with  all  the  saints  what  is  the 
breadth  and  length  and  height  and  depth,  and  to  know  the  love  of  Christ 
which  passeth  knowledge,  that  ye  may  be  filled  unto  all  the  fulness  of 
God”  (Ephesians  iii.  14-19). 

“If  then  ye  were  raised  together  with  Christ,  seek  the  things  that  are 
above,  where  Christ  is,  seated  on  the  right  hand  of  God.  Set  your  mind 
on  the  things  that  are  above,  not  on  the  things  that  are  upon  the  earth. 
For  ye  died,  and  your  life  is  hid  with  Christ  in  God.  When  Christ,  who 
is  our  life,  shall  be  manifested,  then  shall  ye  also  with  him  be  manifested 
in  glory  ”  (Colossians  iii.  1-4). 

“And  he  that  keepeth  his  commandments  abideth  in  him,  and  he  in 
him.  And  hereby  we  know  that  he  abideth  in  us,  by  the  Spirit  which 
he  gave  us  ”  (I.  John  iii.  24). 

These  are  only  specimens  of  a  multitude  of  passages  which 
distinctly  teach  that  the  Church  as  a  body,  and  Christians  as 
individual  members  of  that  body,  have  the  presence  of  Christ, 
the  indwelling  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  and  the  power  from  God  the 
Father  with  them,  and  that  it  is  their  privilege  to  recognize 
this  divine  presence  and  to  live  under  the  authority  of  God. 
Those  therefore  who  deny  that  the  Reason  is  a  great  fountain 
of  divine  authority  overlook  some  of  the  most  important  pas¬ 
sages  of  Holy  Scripture,  especially  those  which  guide  into  the 
higher  life  of  communion  with  the  Triune  God. 

III. — The  Testimony  of  Christian  Experience 

Let  me  call  your  attention  to  my  motive  for  introducing 
the  divine  authority  in  the  forms  of  the  Reason  into  my 
Inaugural  Address.  If  you  will  read  the  Inaugural  with  any 
degree  of  attention,  you  will  see  that  my  purpose  was  not  to 
extol  Rationalism  or  to  magnify  Martineau  or  to  teach  the  sal¬ 
vation  of  the  heathen;  but  as  I  distinctly  said:  “We  have  ex¬ 
amined  the  Church  and  the  Reason  as  seats  of  divine  authority 
in  an  introduction  to  our  theme,  the  authority  of  the  Scrip¬ 
tures,  because  they  open  our  eyes  to  see  mistakes  that  are  com¬ 
mon  to  the  three  departments  ”  (p.  28) . 

My  subsequent  use  of  the  divine  authority  in  the  forms  of 
the  Reason  was  in  order  to  show  that  the  three  seats  of 
authority  speak  in  harmony ;  and  in  order  to  point  to  their  vast 


THE  REASON 


61 


importance  for  a  higher  Christian  life.  I  said,  and  I  reaffirm 
what  I  said :  “  The  Reason  also  has  its  rights,  its  place  and 
importance  in  the  economy  of  Redemption.  I  rejoice  at  the 
age  of  Rationalism,  with  all  its  wonderful  achievements  in 
philosophy.  I  look  upon  it  as  preparing  men  to  use  their 
reasons  in  the  last  great  age  of  the  world.  Criticism  will  go 
on  with  its  destruction  of  errors  and  its  verification  of  truth 
and  fact.  The  human  mind  will  learn  to  know  its  powers  and 
to  use  them.  The  forms  of  the  reason,  the  conscience,  the 
religious  feeling,  the  aesthetic  taste — all  the  highest  energies  of 
our  nature  will  exert  themselves  as  never  before.  God  will 
appear  in  their  forms  and  give  an  inward  assurance  and  cer¬ 
tainty  greater  than  that  given  in  former  ages.  These  increased 
powers  of  the  human  soul  will  enable  men  to  search  those 
higher  mysteries  of  Biblical  theology  that  no  theologian  has 
yet  mastered,  and  those  mysteries  that  are  wrapped  up  in  the 
institutions  of  the  Church  to  all  who  really  know  them.  It  is 
impossible  that  the  Bible  and  the  Church  should  ever  exert  their 
full  power  until  the  human  reason,  trained  and  strained  to  the 
uttermost,  rise  to  the  heights  of  its  energies  and  reach  forth 
after  God  and  His  Christ  with  absolute  devotion  and  self- 
renouncing  love.  Then  we  may  expect  on  the  heights  of  theo¬ 
logical  speculation,  and  from  the  peaks  of  Christian  experience, 
that  those  profound  doctrines  that  now  divide  Christendom  by 
their  antinomies  will  appear  as  the  two  sides  of  the  same  law, 
or  the  foci  of  a  divine  ellipse,  which  is  itself  but  one  of  the 
curves  in  that  conic  section  of  God’s  dominion  in  which,  in 
loving  wisdom,  He  has  appointed  the  lines  of  our  destiny  ” 
(pp.  65,  66). 

Consider  for  a  moment,  (a)  What  can  you  do  in  private 
prayer  unless  divine  authority  comes  to  you  in  the  forms  of 
the  Reason?  How  can  you  fix  your  mind  on  God,  how  can 
you  send  forth  a  petition  unto  His  ears,  how  can  you  expect  an 
answer  unless  the  soul  reaches  forth  with  all  its  powers  in 
order  to  lay  hold  upon  God?  And  where  will  you  find  Him? 
In  the  air?  Can  you  ascend  to  Him?  We  speak  of  it  in  local 
relations,  but  we  do  not  really  ascend  to  heaven — God  descends 
to  us.  He  condescends  to  answer  us  by  entering  into  us  and 
taking  possession  of  us  by  His  almighty  presence  and  power. 


62 


THE  DEFENCE  OF  PROFESSOR  BRIGGS 


How  can  you  know  that  your  prayers  have  been  heard? 
How  can  you  know  that  they  have  been  answered  unless  the 
divine  Spirit  gives  you  that  knowledge  through  a  fountain  of 
divine  authority  bursting  forth  within  you?  I  appeal  to  your 
Christian  experience  in  private  prayer.  Are  you  not  accus¬ 
tomed  to  turn  away  from  the  world  and  fix  your  attention  on 
God  in  earnest  pleas  for  help  or  glad  thanksgiving?  Have 
you  not  been  assured  as  by  a  touch  divine  flashing  the  light 
you  need  to  see  the  pathway  of  privilege  and  duty,  determining 
you  to  pursue  the  right  course  and  calming  your  feelings  into 
a  heavenly  peace?  No  possible  influence,  of  friendly  counsel, 
or  hostile  threats,  can  stay  or  deflect  the  course  of  the  man 
whom  God  has  taught  in  prayer. 

I  cannot  understand  how  any  one  who  is  accustomed  to 
private  prayer,  and  especially  to  ejaculatory  prayer,  and  who 
endeavors  to  follow  the  guidance  of  God’s  Spirit  in  his  daily 
life — I  cannot  understand  how  any  such  man  could  possibly 
consent  to  a  denial  of  a  fountain  of  divine  authority  within 
his  own  soul. 

(b)  Think  also  of  your  hours  of  religious  meditation  and  pri¬ 
vate  communion  with  God.  Some  of  you,  I  doubt  not,  have 
enjoyed  such  hours  when  the  world  has  vanished,  Holy  Church 
is  forgotten,  the  Bible  lies  unnoticed,  and  nothing  interposes 
between  you  and  God.  What  heights  of  religious  ecstasy, 
what  raptures  of  heavenly  bliss  do  those  enjoy  whose  religious 
feelings  thrill  with  the  touch  of  the  divine  Spirit,  whose  con¬ 
science  is  alive  with  holy  concepts,  and  whose  religious  imagi¬ 
nation  sees  Jesus  Christ  in  His  wondrous  grace  and  matchless 
beauty.  Such  heavenly  places  in  Christ  Jesus  are  open  to  us 
because  Christ  Jesus  comes  to  us  in  accordance  with  His 
promise  and  enters  the  forms  of  the  Reason,  and  fills  all  the 
avenues  of  the  soul  with  fountain-streams  of  sweetest  authority. 

(c)  How  can  Christian  doctrine  be  rightly  unfolded  unless 
by  a  Christian  speculation  guided  by  the  divine  Spirit  working 
within  the  Reason?  There  is  speculative  theology  which  is 
mere  rationalizing — there  is  scholastic  theology  that  is  mere 
scholasticism.  All  such  theology  is  a  mere  process  of  logical 
evolution,  subject  to  the  errors  into  which  weak  man  is  ever 
falling.  But  a  true  Christian  theologian  who  would  know  the 


THE  REASON 


63 


truth  of  God  must  be  willing  to  do  the  will  of  God.  Faith  can¬ 
not  go  far  ahead  of  practice.  Theology  cannot  outstrip  life. 
Nothing  is  genuine  in  Christian  theology  which  is  not  born  of 
God’s  Spirit.  How  else  shall  the  Christian  theologian  get  the 
truth  of  God  unless  he  be  guided  by  the  Holy  Spirit  into  the 
truth?  The  Holy  Spirit  dwells  in  the  Church  and  in  the  indi¬ 
vidual  Christian  for  this  purpose,  giving  divine  authority  and 
certainty  of  truth  in  the  forms  of  the  Reason.  Thus  the  theo¬ 
logian  grows  in  the  divine  doctrine.  Thus  the  Church  advances 
in  its  most  holy  faith. 

I  have  shown  you  by  indubitable  evidence  from  Confession 
and  from  Scripture  and  from  Christian  experience  that  “  there 
are  historically  three  great  fountains  of  divine  authority,  the 
Bible,  the  Church,  and  the  Reason.”  It  is  an  historical  fact 
which  cannot  be  gainsaid  without  closing  the  eyes  to  evidence 
which  pervades  history. 

Early  in  our  century  a  great  revival  movement  took  its  rise 
in  Oxford,  and  spread  all  over  the  Church  of  England  and  the 
churches  which  are  her  daughters.  It  was  the  Anglo-catholic 
revival,  whose  essential  principle  was  the  recognition  of  the 
divine  authority  in  the  Church.  In  the  middle  of  our  century 
another  revival  movement  spread  over  the  English-speaking 
world,  having  as  its  great  principle  the  divine  authority  in  the 
Bible.  In  the  closing  years  of  our  century  another  great 
revival  took  its  rise  in  the  East  of  London  and  spread  all  over 
Christendom  in  the  form  of  the  Salvation  Army.  This  Army 
is  the  antithesis  of  the  Anglo-catholic  movement  because  it  is 
altogether  unchurchly.  It  seeks  immediate  communion  with 
God,  divine  authorhy  within  the  soul  by  the  baptism  of  Blood 
and  Fire  which,  come  from  the  real  presence  of  Christ  and  the 
all-pervading  power  of  the  indwelling  Spirit. 

I  call  these  three  great  revival  movements  of  our  century  to 
witness  that  divine  authority  comes  to  men  through  the  three 
great  fountains,  the  Bible,  the  Church,  and  the  Reason.  Every 
revival  movement  of  the  past  witnesses  a  similar  confession. 
Wherever  there  has  been  vital  religion,  wherever  there  have 
been  holy  men  and  women  seeking  after  the  living  God,  God 
has  given  them  the  assurance  of  His  presence  and  authority, 
sometimes  through  the  Church,  sometimes  through  the  Bible, 


G4  THE  DEFENCE  OF  PROFESSOR  BRIGGS 

and  sometimes  through  the  Reason.  We  cannot  deny  this 
without  shutting  our  eyes  to  history,  or  refusing  to  recognize 
in  these  revival  movements  anything  but  illusions  and  delu¬ 
sions  of  pious  enthusiasts.  I  decline  to  recognize  one  form  as 
genuine  and  refuse  the  others  as  delusions.  I  recognize  them 
all,  each  in  its  place  combining  to  accomplish  the  full  work  of 
grace  in  the  world. 

Convict  me  of  heresy  under  Charge  I.  and  you  challenge  the 
Christian  centuries.  All  the  ages  will  be  against  you  and,  in  a 
multitude  of  voices  like  the  roar  of  many  waters,  will  denounce 
you  as  knowing  neither  the  truth  nor  the  power  of  God. 

The  Case  of  Martineau 

I  have  shown  you  that  the  doctrine  which  I  truly,  hold,  that 
“the  Reason  is  a  great  fountain  of  divine  authority,”  is  an  im¬ 
portant  doctrine  of  Holy  Scripture  and  of  our  Standards.  I 
shall  now  show  you  that  the  inferences  from  this  doctrine  made 
by  the  prosecution  in  their  charge  are  inferences  for  which  they 
are  exclusively  responsible,  and  for  which  you  cannot  hold  me 
responsible  without  a  violation  of  the  laws  of  process  in  our 
Church  and  without  a  violation  of  the  laws  of  logic  established 
by  God  in  our  minds. 

It  seems  altogether  probable  that  this  clause  is  directed 
against  what  I  said  with  reference  to  Martineau ;  for  the  only 
passage  cited  from  my  Inaugural  which  can  in  any  way  be  tor¬ 
tured  into  sustaining  it  is  the  following : 

“  Martineau  could  not  find  divine  authority  in  the  Church  or 
the  Bible,  but  he  did  find  God  enthroned  in  his  own  soul. 
There  are  those  who  would  refuse  these  rationalists  a  place  in 
the  company  of  the  faithful.  But  they  forget  that  the  essential 
thing  is  to  find  God  and  divine  certainty,  and  if  these  men 
have  found  God  without  the  mediation  of  Church  and  Bible, 
Church  and  Bible  are  means  and  not  ends ;  they  are  avenues  to 
God,  but  are  not  God.  We  regret  that  these  rationalists  depre¬ 
ciate  the  means  of  grace  so  essential  to  most  of  us,  but  we  are 
warned  lest  we  commit  a  similar  error,  and  depreciate  the  rea¬ 
son  and  the  Christian  consciousness”  (Charge,  p.  4). 

I  am  glad  that  the  prosecution  omit  Martineau’ s  name  from 


THE  REASON 


65 


the  charge,  and  that  therefore  they  make  no  such  imputations 
against  him  as  they  made  in  Specification  III.  of  the  original  first 
Charge,  when  they  said :  “  such  as  James  Martineau,  who  denies 
the  doctrines  of  the  Holy  Trinity,  the  Incarnation,  the  Atone¬ 
ment,  the  Resurrection  of  the  Body,  the  personality  of  the  Holy 
Ghost,  who  rejects  the  miracles  of  the  Bible  and  denies  the 
truth  of  the  Gospel  narratives,  as  well  as  most  of  the  theology 
of  the  Epistles.”  But  they  have  introduced  these  imputations 
into  their  argument ;  and  it  appears  that  they  use  Martineau 
as  a  representative  of  “  such  men  as  reject  the  Scriptures  as 
the  authoritative  proclamation  of  the  will  of  God  and  reject 
also  the  way  of  salvation  through  the  mediation  and  sacrifice 
of  the  Son  of  God  as  revealed  therein ;  ”  for  in  no  other  possible 
way  than  by  proving  that  Martineau  does  so  reject  the  Scrip¬ 
tures  and  the  Son  of  God,  can  they  prove  this  section  of  their 
charge.  I  mentioned  no  other  name  than  Martineau  in  connec¬ 
tion  with  my  doctrine  of  the  Reason,  and  I  certainly  did  not  say 
that  either  Martineau  as  an  individual  or  the  rationalists  as  a 
class  rejected  Christ  and  the  Scriptures.  I  am  not  responsible 
for  anything  I  did  not  say  in  my  Inaugural.  I  am  not  respon¬ 
sible  for  any  opinions  the  prosecution  may  impute  to  Martineau. 

If  it  be  true  that  James  Martineau  denies  so  many  doctrines 
which  I  hold  dear,  I  greatly  regret  it.  I  have  not  learned  from 
his  writings  that  he  was  so  sweeping  in  his  denials  as  the  pros¬ 
ecution  allege.  The  prosecution  certainly  present  no  proof  of 
it.  But  it  makes  no  difference  to  this  court  whether  the  prose¬ 
cution  are  right  or  wrong  in  their  charges  against  Martineau. 
These  have  nothing  whatever  to  do  with  the  case.  W e  are  all 
of  us  shocked  at  times  by  his  utterances.  I  am  as  strongly 
opposed  to  his  speculative  errors  as  any  of  you.  I  am  not  a 
sponsor  for  his  orthodoxy.  He  is  not  a  party  in  this  case.  He 
is  beyond  the  reach  of  these  prosecutors.  He  is  a  member  of  a 
Presbytery  in  Ireland.  They  should  confine  themselves  to  the 
offences  of  Dr.  Briggs,  whom  they  are  able  to  reach  through 
the  circumstance  that  they  are  fortunate  enough  to  be  members 
of  the  Presbytery  of  New  York.  But  here  as  elsewhere  the 
offence  is  one  in  the  imagination  of  the  prosecution,  for  which 
they  have  no  justification  in  the  Inaugural  Address.  I  have 
nowhere  said  that  Holy  Scripture  is  “  not  sufficient  to  give  that 


66 


THE  DEFENCE  OF  PROFESSOR  BRIGGS 


knowledge  of  God  and  of  His  will,  which  is  necessary  unto 
salvation.”  I  said  that  “  Martineau  did  not  find  divine  author¬ 
ity  in  the  Church  or  the  Bible,  but  he  did  find  God  enthroned 
in  his  own  soul.”  Holy  Scripture  is  sufficient  to  give  saving 
knowledge  even  when  men  do  not  find  it.  It  is  sufficient  for  all 
men — for  the  entire  world.  But  all  men  do  not  in  fact  gain  this 
saving  knowledge  from  the  Bible.  I  did  not  say  whether  Mar¬ 
tineau  gained  saving  knowledge  from  the  Bible  or  not.  That 
was  not  the  question  before  me  in  the  Inaugural.  I  was  con¬ 
sidering  the  question  of  religious  certainty,  the  fountains  of 
divine  authority.  I  did  not  say  that  Martineau  rejected  the 
way  of  salvation  revealed  in  the  Bible,  but  I  said  Martineau 
could  not  find  certainty  of  divine  authority  in  the  Church  or 
the  Bible.  He  says  he  did  not  and  could  not.  We  have  no 
right  to  doubt  him  or  dispute  him  in  this  statement  of  his  expe¬ 
rience.  The  only  question  which  was  raised  by  me  was, 
whether  he  did  find  God  “  enthroned  in  his  own  soul.”  That  is 
a  question  of  fact.  I  did  not  raise  the  question  whether  a  man 
who  rejects  the  way  of  salvation  revealed  in  the  Scripture  may 
find  God  enthroned  in  his  own  soul.  I  did  not  consider  that 
question  in  the  Inaugural.  I  decline  to  consider  it  now.  I 
insist  that  this  court  shall  confine  itself  to  the  questions 
raised  in  my  Inaugural  and  not  rove  over  the  field  of  theology 
generally,  under  the  guidance  of  this  erratic  committee.  I  have 
shown  that  Scripture,  history,  Confession,  and  experience  prove 
that  there  are  those  who  find  God  enthroned  within  their  own 
souls.  The  question  is  whether  Martineau  was  such  a  person. 
I  have  said  that  he  was  such  a  person.  It  is  possible  I  may  be 
mistaken  in  this  question  of  fact.  But  such  a  mistake  is  no 
heresy  unless  I  am  a  heretic  under  the  general  charge  that  “  the 
Reason  is  a  great  fountain  of  divine  authority.”  If  I  am  in 
error  about  Martineau,  the  example  used  by  me  was  a  bad  one. 
A  bad  example  may  discredit  a  proposition,  but  it  does  not  dis¬ 
prove  it.  If  my  opinion  of  Martineau  errs  at  all,  it  is  on  the 
side  of  Christian  love  which  covers  over  a  multitude  of  sins. 
The  prosecution  run  great  risks  of  trenching  on  Christian  love, 
if  they  venture  to  assert  that  Martineau  is  mistaken  when  lie 
claims  to  have  found  God  enthroned  in  his  own  soul.  Listen 
to  his  words : 


THE  CHURCH 


G7 


“Divine  guidance  has  never  and  nowhere  failed  to  men ;  nor  has  it 
ever,  in  the  most  essential  things,  largely  differed  amongst  them,  but  it 
has  not  always  been  recognized  as  divine,  much  less  as  the  living  contact 
of  Spirit  with  spirit — the  communion  of  affection  between  God  and  man. 
While  conscience  remained  an  impersonal  laic,  stern  and  silent,  writh 
only  a  jealous  Nemesis  behind,  man  had  to  stand  up  alone,  and  work 
out  for  himself  his  independent  magnanimity ;  and  he  could  only  be  the 
pagan  hero.  When  conscience  was  found  to  be  inseparably  blended  with 
the  Holy  Spirit,  and  to  speak  in  tones  immediately  divine,  it  became 
the  very  shrine  of  worship — its  strife,  its  repentance,  its  aspirations, 
passed  into  the  incidents  of  a  living  drama,  with  its  crises  of  alienation 
and  reconcilement ;  and  the  cold  obedience  to  a  mysterious  necessity  was 
exchanged  for  the  allegiance  of  personal  affection.  And  this  is  the  true 
emergence  from  the  darkness  of  ethical  law  to  the  tender  light  of  the  life 
divine.  The  veil  falls  from  the  shadowed  face  of  moral  authority,  and 
the  directing  love  of  the  all-holy  God  shines  forth”  (Martineau’s  “Seat 
of  Authority  in  Religion,  ”  p.  75) . 

Some  of  you  may  stand  on  the  lower  legal  stage  of  the  Chris¬ 
tian  religion  and  so  deny  the  religious  experience  of  a  man  who 
can  say  such  things.  I  cannot  do  so  and  I  refuse  to  do  so.  It 
is  plain  to  me  that  Martineau  has  gained  a  higher  stage  of 
Christian  freedom  and  direct  communion  with  God ,  and  it 
is  immaterial  how  he  gained  it. 


IY 

THE  CHURCH 

I  declared  in  the  Inaugural  that  “  The  Church  is  a  great 
fountain  of  divine  authority .”  I  make  the  same  declaration 
in  your  presence  at  this  time.  I  shall  show  you  that  this 
declaration  is  not  contrary  to  Holy  Scripture  and  the  W estmin- 
ster  Standards,  but  on  the  other  hand  that  it  is  so  important  a 
doctrine  of  the  Holy  Scripture  and  the  Standards  that  to  deny 
it  would  be  heresy. 

I  have  already  tested  under  the  first  charge  the  nine  pas¬ 
sages  of  Scripture  cited  by  the  prosecution  under  both  the  first 
and  the  second  charges,  and  I  have  shown  that  there  is  no 
relevancy  in  them  to  either  charge. 

I  have  also  considered  the  several  passages  of  the  Westmin¬ 
ster  Standard  which  are  also  the  same  under  both  charges,  and 


08 


THE  DEFENCE  OF  PROFESSOR  BRIGGS 


have  shown  that  they  do  not  teach  that  Holy  Scripture  is  the 
sole  fountain  of  divine  authority ;  and  that  they  leave  room  for 
the  Reason  as  a  fountain  of  divine  authority.  It  seems  unneces¬ 
sary  for  me  to  review  them  again  and  show  that  they  also  leave 
room  for  the  Church  as  a  fountain  of  divine  authority.  I  shall 
use  my  time  therefore  in  the  positive  argument  from  Confession 
and  Holy  Scripture  in  support  of  my  thesis.  The  prosecution 
claim  that  the  doctrine  that  the  Church  is  a  fountain  of  divine 
authority  is  contrary  to  the  doctrines  that  the  Holy  Scripture  is 
most  necessary,  and  the  rule  of  faith  and  practice.  It  is  diffi¬ 
cult  to  understand  how  any  intelligent  man  can  leap  the  gulf 
between  these  two  propositions ;  or  how  any  Churchman, 
Roman  Catholic,  Greek  Catholic,  Anglican,  Lutheran,  Presby¬ 
terian,  or  Congregationalist  can  deny  that  divine  authority 
speaks  and  acts  through  the  Church.  If  an  ancient  Puritan 
or  a  Westminster  divine  could  descend  from  Paradise  into  this 
Presbytery  to-day,  he  would  be  filled  with  astonishment  that  a 
Presbytery  of  a  Church  that  calls  itself  Presbyterian  could 
have  so  far  abandoned  the  faith  of  the  Puritan  fathers,  as  to 
permit  the  prosecution  to  charge  a  minister  with  heresy  for  main¬ 
taining  that  there  is  divine  authority  in  the  Church.  I  am  well 
aware,  as  was  stated  in  the  book  “  Whither?”  that  modern  Pres¬ 
byterians  have  departed  far  away  from  the  Westminster  doc¬ 
trine  of  the  Church  and  the  sacraments ;  but  who  could  have 
imagined  that  a  man  would  be  charged  with  heresy  for  hold¬ 
ing  to  the  Westminster  doctrine  and  maintaining  it  against  the 
errors  of  modern  dogmaticians?  It  is  significant  that  the 
Westminster  Confession  gives  seven  chapters  (XXVAXXI.) 
upon  the  doctrine  of  the  Church  and  the  sacraments,  doctrines 
as  essential  and  necessary  to  the  system  of  doctrine  taught  in 
the  Westminster  Confession  as  the  doctrine  of  Holy  Scripture 
contained  in  the  first  chapter.  The  prosecution  do  not  cite 
against  me  a  single  sentence  from  these  seven  chapters  when 
they  charge  me  with  error  in  teaching  that  the  Church  is  a 
fountain  of  divine  authority.  If  this  be  an  error,  it  touches 
the  doctrine  of  the  Church  as  well  as  the  doctrine  of  Holy 
Scripture,  and  one  would  expect  to  find  something  in  these 
seven  chapters  that  would  give  the  Westminster  decision  of  this 
most  important  question.  To  these  chapters  I  sincerely  sub- 


THE  CHURCH 


69 


scribe,  and  I  challenge  the  sincerity  of  the  subscription  to  these 
chapters  of  any  man  who  denies  that  the  Church  is  a  fountain 
of  divine  authority.  I  shall  take  the  liberty  of  citing  these 
chapters  to  give  their  testimony  in  the  case,  and  it  will  be 
found,  that  their  testimony  is  in  unmistakable  terms  against  the 
prosecutors. 

The  Westminster  Confession  teaches  clearly  that  the  Church 
is  a  great  fountain  of  divine  authority  (a) : 

“  The  Lord  Jesus,  as  king  and  head  of  his  church,  hath  therein  ap¬ 
pointed  a  government  in  the  hand  of  church -officers,  distinct  from  the 
civil  magistrate.  To  these  officers  the  keys  of  the  kingdom  of  heaven 
are  committed,  by  virtue  whereof  they  have  power  respectively  to  retain 
and  remit  sins,  to  shut  the  kingdom  against  the  impenitent,  both  by  the 
word  and  censures  ;  and  to  open  it  unto  penitent  sinners,  by  the  ministry  of 
the  gospel,  and  by  absolution  from  censures,  as  occasion  shall  require  ” 
(C.  F.,  Chap.  XXX.  1,  2). 

I  know  that  there  is  an  overture  from  the  General  Assembly 
proposing  to  weaken  the  force  of  this  chapter  by  inserting  a 
qualif}Ting  clause,  but  this  clause  will  not  do  away  with  the 
doctrine — it  simply  shows  that  the  Revision  Committee  of  our 
branch  of  the  Presbyterian  Church  has  in  a  measure  receded 
from  the  high  ground  maintained  in  the  seventeenth  century. 
But  in  any  case  this  section  teaches  that  church  officers  have 
the  divine  authority  of  Jesus  Christ  in  their  government  of  the 
Church  and  in  their  use  of  the  power  of  the  keys.  This  au¬ 
thority  does  not  make  them  infallible,  but  it  does  make  them 
ministers  of  Jesus  Christ  with  authority  to  rule  as  His  agents. 

Unless  the  members  of  this  court  have  been  called  to  their 
office  by  the  authority  of  Jesus  Christ,  speaking  to  them  first  in 
their  own  reasons  in  the  internal  call  and  then  through  the 
authority  of  t*he  Church  in  the  external  call  of  ordination,  this 
court  is  no  court  of  Jesus  Christ,  no  church  organization,  what¬ 
ever  else  it  may  be.  Unless  Jesus  Christ  has  committed  to  you 
the  keys  of  the  kingdom  of  heaven,  you  have  no  authority 
whatever  to  exercise  ecclesiastical  discipline.  You  are  usurp¬ 
ing  the  crown  rights  of  Jesus  Christ,  which  He  has  given  only 
to  His  church,  if  you  with  one  voice  assert  the  authority  of  the 
Church  and  with  the  other  prosecute  me  for  heresy  for  assert¬ 
ing  the  divine  authority  of  the  Church.  There  is  no  need  of  a 


70 


THE  DEFENCE  OF  PROFESSOR  BRIGGS 


heresy  trial  on  this  question.  If  this  Presbytery  is  ready  to 
declare  that  the  Presbyterian  Church  has  no  divine  authority, 
I  will  at  once  renounce  your  jurisdiction.  I  would  refuse  to 
fellowship  as  an  ordained  minister  with  a  body  of  ministers 
claiming  to  be  ordained  and  yet  denying  that  they  had  any 
divine  authority  to  exercise  their  ministry.  I  would  seek  the 
fellowship  of  a  Church  that  is  conscious  of  a  divine  authority 
in  its  ministry,  in  its  sacraments,  and  in  its  ordinances. 

( b )  The  Westminster  Confession  further  teaches  that 

“The  visible  church,  which  is  also  catholic  or  universal  under  the 
Gospel  (not  confined  to  one  nation,  as  before  under  the  law),  consists  of 
all  those  throughout  the  world,  that  profess  the  true  religion,  together 
with  their  children ;  and  is  the  kingdom  of  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ,  the 
house  and  family  of  God,  out  of  which  there  is  no  ordinary  possibility 
of  salvation.  Unto  the  catholic,  visible  church,  Christ  hath  given  the 
ministry,  oracles,  and  ordinances  of  God,  for  the  gathering  and  perfect¬ 
ing  of  the  saints  in  this  life,  to  the  end  of  the  world  :  and  doth  by  his  own 
presence  and  Spirit,  according  to  his  promise,  make  them  effectual  there¬ 
unto  ”  (C.  F.,  Chap.  XX Y.  2,  3). 

This  passage  clearly  shows  that  the  visible  Church  is  the 
kingdom  of  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ;  that  He  hath  given  the 
ministry,  oracles,  and  ordinances  of  God  unto  it ;  and  “  doth  by 
His  own  presence  and  Spirit  make  them  effectual.”  If  the 
Presbytery  is  not  a  court  of  the  Kingdom  of  Christ  erected  by 
divine  authority ;  if  you  have  not  been  given  the  ordinances  by 
Jesus  Christ  to  administer  in  His  name;  if  Jesus  Christ  and 
His  Spirit  are  not  present  in  the  midst  of  you — then  you  are  no 
part  of  the  Church  of  Jesus  Christ  at  all.  I  do  not  think  that 
any  considerable  number  of  you  hold  such  heretical  views. 
But  whatever  this  court  may  conclude,  I  declare  that  the  state¬ 
ment  of  the  Confession  is  a  true  statement.  There  is  divine 
authority  in  the  Church ;  it  is  Christ’s  kingdom,  He  reigns  over 
it,  He  inhabits  it  by  His  Spirit,  He  makes  its  institutions  effi¬ 
cacious,  He  grants  access  to  Himself  through  His  Church.  Our 
Presbyterian  fathers  rejoiced  in  such  access.  Their  descend¬ 
ants  enjoy  this  unspeakable  privilege.  Are  we  to  be  robbed  of 
our  birthright?  Are  you  ready  to  banish  from  the  official 
doctrine  of  the  Presbyterian  Church  the  witnessing  Spirit, 
the  indwelling  Christ,  the  living  God,  in  order  to  incase  the 


THE  CHURCH 


71 


Holy  Trinity  in  the  covers  of  a  book?  Shall  we  destroy  the 
Church  in  order  to  exalt  the  Bible? 

(c)  The  Larger  Catechism  defines  a  sacrament  as  follows : 

“A  sacrament  is  an  holy  ordinance  instituted  by  Christ  in  his  church, 
to  signify,  seal,  and  exhibit  unto  those  that  are  within  the  covenant  of 
grace,  the  benefits  of  his  mediation ;  to  strengthen  and  increase  their 
faith  and  all  other  graces ;  to  oblige  them  to  obedience ;  to  testify  and 
cherish  their  love  and  communion  one  with  another,  and  to  distinguish 
them  from  those  that  are  without  ”  (Question  162) . 

The  sacraments  which  we  are  constantly  enjoying  in  our 
churches,  being  instituted  by  Christ,  must  have  divine  author¬ 
ity.  Whenever  we  use  them,  the  authority  of  God  is  impressed 
upon  us  by  the  words  of  institution  and  the  prayer  of  consecra¬ 
tion.  They  are  not  mere  ceremonies  established  by  divine 
authority.  They  are  means  of  grace,  they  give  something  of 
immense  value  to  us.  They  signify,  seal,  and  exhibit  the  bene¬ 
fits  of  Christ’s  mediation.  There  is  divine  authority  in  this 
signifying,  sealing,  and  exhibiting.  There  is  no  less  authority 
in  what  the  sacraments  set  forth  than  in  what  Holy  Scripture 
sets  forth.  They  “  strengthen  and  increase  faith  and  all  other 
graces.”  How  can  they  do  this  unless  divine  authority  imparts 
that  strength  and  increase? 

The  Shorter  Catechism  thus  describes  the  efficacy  of  a  sacra¬ 
ment  : 

“  The  sacraments  become  effectual  means  of  salvation,  not  from  any 
virtue  in  them,  or  in  him  that  doth  administer  them ;  but  only  by  the 
blessing  of  Christ,  and  the  working  of  his  Spirit  in  them  that  by  faith 
receive  them  ”  (Question  91) . 

If  the  efficacy  of  a  sacrament  depends  upon  the  working  of 
the  Holy  Spirit,  then  the  Holy  Spirit  must  be  in  touch  with  the 
believer  in  the  sacrament,  and  if  He  is  in  touch  with  the  be¬ 
liever,  God  is  in  touch  with  him,  and  there  is  divine  authority 
imparted  in  the  presence  and  power  of  the  Holy  Spirit. 

The  Larger  Catechism  tells  us  how  we  feed  upon  the  body 
and  blood  of  Christ : 

“As  the  body  and  blood  of  Christ  are  not  corporally  or  carnally  present 
in,  with,  or  under  the  bread  and  wine  in  the  Lord’s  supper :  and  yet  are 
spiritually  present  to  the  faith  of  the  receiver,  no  less  truly  and  really 


72 


THE  DEFENCE  OF  PROFESSOR  BRIGGS 


than  the  elements  themselves  are  to  their  outward  senses ;  so  they  that 
worthily  communicate  in  the  sacrament  of  the  Lord’s  supper  do  therein 
feed  upon  the  body  and  blood  of  Christ,  not  after  a  corporal  or  carnal, 
but  in  a  spiritual  manner ;  yet  truly  and  really,  while  by  faith  they  re¬ 
ceive  and  apply  unto  themselves  Christ  crucified,  and  all  the  benefits  of 
his  death  ”  (Question  170) . 

This  passage  teaches  the  real  presence  of  Christ  to  the  soul 
of  the  believer,  and  that  the  believer  may  have  and  often  does 
have  a  consciousness  of  the  sacred  presence  while  the  spirit  of 
Christ  communes  with  his  spirit.  If  our  Lord  is  really  present 
to  us  in  the  Lord’s  Supper,  is  not  divine  authority  present  with 
us  in  Him?  and  if  divine  authority  is  present  in  Him  are  not 
all  of  the  spiritual  benefits  thus  received  of  divine  authority, 
and  do  they  not  come  with  certainty  to  our  souls?  The  Holy 
Supper  is  often  more  potent  than  Holy  Scripture  in  the  impar- 
tation  of  divine  authority  and  certainty.  It  is  thus  rightly 
named  a  sealing  ordinance.  You  cannot  deny  that  there  is 
divine  authority  in  the  Church  without  denying  the  presence  of 
Christ  in  the  Holy  Eucharist,  without  robbing  the  sacraments  of 
their  historic  value  to  the  Christian  world.  I  appeal  to  your 
religious  experience  in  the  communion  hour.  Have  we  not 
enjoyed  fellowship  with  our  divine  Master  at  the  Lord’s  table? 
Have  not  our  religious  emotions  been  quickened  by  a  power 
divine?  Have  we  not  felt  in  our  inmost  being  the  divine  touch? 
Have  we  not  seen  the  Lord  with  eyes  of  faith  and  holy  love? 
Listen  to  the  testimony  of  prophet  and  sage,  of  evangelist  and 
apostle,  of  martyr  and  saint,  of  theologian  and  reformer,  of  holy 
men  and  women  in  all  ages,  an  innumerable  company,  whose 
voices  flow  down  the  ages,  from  all  churches,  from  all  lands, 
and  in  every  language  and  tongue,  through  every  variety  of 
liturgy  and  ceremony  and  rite : 

O  Christ,  Saviour  divine !  we  testify  to  Thy  gracious  pres¬ 
ence,  Thy  sweet  authority,  Thy  heavenly  gifts  of  comfort  and 
of  joy,  in  the  sacrament  of  Thy  love. 

( d )  I  ask  your  attention  to  the  first  section  of  the  Book  of 
Discipline : 

“  Discipline  is  the  exercise  of  that  authority,  and  the  application  of 
that  system  of  laws,  which  the  Lord  Jesus  Christ  has  appointed  in  his 
Church  :  embracing  the  care  and  control,  maintained  by  the  Church,  over 
its  members,  officers,  and  judicatories.” 


THE  CHURCH 


73 


This  section  distinctly  says  that  Jesus  Christ  has  appointed 
in  His  Church  authority  to  exercise  discipline,  and  makes  the 
statement  that  discipline  is  the  exercise  of  that  authority.  The 
Directory  of  Discipline  is  the  authority  under  which  you  are 
now  acting  at  the  present  time.  If  you  renounce  the  doctrine 
of  the  first  section  of  the  Discipline  of  our  Church,  you  vitiate 
any  process,  even  if  it  be  conducted  in  strict  accordance  with 
every  other  section.  If  you  adhere  to  the  doctrine  of  this  sec¬ 
tion,  you  must  bring  the  case  to  a  close  so  far  as  this  charge  is 
concerned. 

The  Book  of  Discipline  claims  that  there  is  divine  authority 
in  the  Presbyterian  Church  to  exercise  discipline.  It  does  not 
tolerate  a  specification  of  heresy  which  contravenes  its  funda¬ 
mental  principle.  It  rules  the  prosecutors  out  of  court  for  using 
the  powers  of  the  Book  of  Discipline  to  overthrow  the  funda¬ 
mental  principle  of  the  Book  of  Discipline.  These  prosecutors 
deny  the  authority  of  the  Church  to  do  the  very  thing  they 
request  the  Church  to  do. 

The  Church  is  a  great  fountain  of  divine  authority  accord¬ 
ing  to  the  Standards  of  the  Presbyterian  Church.  There  is  no 
inconsistency  between  the  first  chapter  of  our  Confession  which 
teaches  that  the  Holy  Scriptures  are  the  only  infallible  rule  of 
faith  and  practice,  and  the  seven  chapters  of  the  Confession 
which  set  forth  the  divine  authority  which  there  is  in  the 
Church.  Holy  Church,  like  Holy  Scripture,  is  an  ordinance  of 
God,  a  means  of  grace,  a  channel  of  divine  influence,  an  instru¬ 
ment  of  salvation,  a  fountain  of  holy  authority.  As  divine 
authority  speaks  to  us  in  holy  psalmist  and  holy  prophet,  in 
holy  sage  and  holy  historian,  in  holy  evangelist  and  holy 
apostle  and  holy  seer  in  manifold  ways  and  divers  manners, 
yet  blending  in  holy  harmony ;  so  divine  authority  speaks  to  us 
through  Holy  Church  in  all  the  forms  of  divine  worship,  in 
sacred  praise,  in  public  prayer,  in  the  solemn  reading  of  the 
divine  Word  and  in  the  preaching  of  the  Gospel. 

Have  you  not  felt  the  thrill  of  the  divine  touch,  the  ecstasy 
of  the  divine  presence,  and  the  rest  of  submission  to  and  acqui¬ 
escence  in  the  divine  authority  impressing  itself  with  irresist¬ 
ible  weight  and  conviction  of  certainty  when  assembled  with 
God’s  people  in  public  worship?  Why  do  Christians  resort  to 


74 


THE  DEFENCE  OF  PROFESSOR  BRIGGS 


Holy  Church  if  it  be  not  for  the  regenerating,  cleansing,  sane- 
tifying,  and  comforting  influences  of  the  divine  Spirit  which 
pervade  a  living  Church  and  an  assembly  of  living  Christians? 
It  is  because  the  enthroned  Christ  is  really  present  with  His 
assembled  people.  The  Holy  Spirit  broods  over  them  with 
divine  energy,  and  divine  authority  flows  forth  from  the  foun¬ 
tain  of  the  Church  in  a  thousand  quickening  rills. 

The  Church  is  not  an  infallible  rule  of  faith.  I  do  not 
recognize  an  infallible  pope.  I  do  not  recognize  an  infallible 
episcopacy;  still  less  do  I  recognize  an  infallible  General 
Assembly.  It  became  clear  when  the  presbyters  overthrew 
the  bishops  in  the  17th  century  that  presbyter  might  be  only 
“priest  writ  large,”  and  the  history  of  Presbyterianism  has 
shown  that  presbyter  bishops  may  be  guilty  of  more  extensive 
despotism  than  diocesan  bishops.  Our  Confession  truly  says : 

“All  synods  or  councils  since  the  apostles’  times,  whether  general  or 
particular,  may  err,  and  many  have  erred ;  therefore  they  are  not  to  be 
made  the  rule  of  faith  or  practice,  but  to  be  used  as  a  help  in  both  ” 
(XXXI.  3) . 

The  Church  has  no  divine  authority  in  itself — apart  from 
God.  Its  divine  authority  is  in  that  its  chief  institutions 
were  divinely  appointed,  and  that  these  divinely  appointed 
institutions  are  the  ordinary  channels  of  the  divine  grace. 
The  Church  is  a  fountain  of  divine  authority.  The  divine 
authority  flows  forth  from  God  Himself,  as  the  sole  original 
fountain-head  and  ultimate  source,  through  the  fountain  of  the 
Church,  and  distributes  its  healing  and  life-giving  streams 
through  all  its  ministries. 

Possibly  I  may  engage  in  a  work  of  supererogation  by  citing 
passages  from  Holy  Scripture  in  evidence  of  the  divine  authority 
that  Christ  imparts  to  His  Church,  and  yet  there  are  some 
minds  that  are  so  blinded  by  prejudice  that  I  might  be  charged 
with  disregarding  Holy  Scripture  if  I  failed  to  use  it.  The 
divine  authority  of  the  sacraments  and  the  ministry  may  be 
proved  from  the  words  of  our  Saviour : 

“And  I  also  say  unto  thee,  that  thou  art  Peter,  and  upon  this  rock  I 
will  build  my  church  ;  and  the  gates  of  Hades  shall  not  prevail  against  it. 

I  will  give  unto  thee  the  keys  of  the  kingdom  of  heaven  :  and  whatsoever 


THE  CHURCH 


75 


tliou  shalt  bind  on  earth  shall  be  bound  in  heaven  :  and  whatsoever  thou 
shalt  loose  on  earth  shall  be  loosed  in  heaven  ”  (Matthew  xvi.  18,  19). 

“And  Jesus  came  to  them  and  spake  unto  them,  saying,  All  authority 
hath  been  given  unto  me  in  heaven  and  on  earth.  Go  ye  therefore,  and 
make  disciples  of  all  the  nations,  baptizing  them  into  the  name  of  the 
Father  and  of  the  Son  and  of  the  Holy  Ghost :  teaching  them  to  observe 
all  things  whatsoever  I  commanded  you :  and,  lo,  I  am  with  you  alway, 
even  unto  the  end  of  the  world  ”  (Matthew  xxviii.  18-20) . 

“And  as  they  were  eating,  Jesus  took  bread,  and  blessed,  and  brake  it; 
and  he  gave  to  the  disciples,  and  said,  Take,  eat ;  this  is  my  body.  And 
he  took  a  cup,  and  gave  thanks,  and  gave  to  them,  saying,  Drink  ye  all 
of  it ;  for  this  is  my  blood  of  the  covenant,  which  is  shed  for  many  unto 
remission  of  sins  ”  (Matthew  xxvi.  26-28) . 

No  one  can  interpret  these  words  in  any  legitimate  way 
without  finding  in  them  the  divine  institution  of  the  Christian 
ministry,  and  the  two  sacraments. 

Paul  teaches  the  same  doctrine : 

“For  I  received  of  the  Lord  that  which  also  I  delivered  unto  you,  how 
that  the  Lord  Jesus  in  the  night  in  which  he  was  betrayed  took  bread  ; 
and  when  he  had  given  thanks,  he  brake  it,  and  said,  This  is  my  body, 
which  is  for  you :  this  do  in  remembrance  of  me.  In  like  manner  also 
the  cup,  after  supper,  saying,  This  cup  is  the  new  covenant  in  my  blood  : 
this  do,  as  oft  as  ye  drink  it,  in  remembrance  of  me.  For  as  often  as  ye 
eat  this  bread  and  drink  the  cup,  ye  proclaim  the  Lord’s  death  till  he 
come  ”  (I.  Cor.  xi.  23-26) . 

“And  he  gave  some  to  be  apostles;  and  some,  prophets;  and  some, 
evangelists ;  and  some,  pastors  and  teachers ;  for  the  perfecting  of  the 
saints,  unto  the  work  of  ministering,  unto  the  building  up  of  the  body 
of  Christ :  till  we  all  attain  unto  the  unity  of  the  faith,  and  of  the 
knowledge  of  the  Son  of  God,  unto  a  full-grown  man,  unto  the  measure 
of  the  stature  of  the  fulness  of  Christ”  (Eph.  iv.  11-13). 

“For  even  as  we  have  many  members  iu  one  body,  and  all  the  mem¬ 
bers  have  not  the  same  office :  so  we,  who  are  many,  are  one  body  in 
Christ,  and  severally  members  one  of  another.  And  having  gifts  differ¬ 
ing  according  to  the  grace  that  was  given  to  us,  whether  prophecy,  let 
us  prophesy  according  to  the  proportion  of  our  faith ;  or  ministry,  let  us 
give  ourselves  to  our  ministry ;  or  he  that  teaclieth,  to  his  teaching ;  or 
lie  that  exliorteth,  to  his  exhorting :  he  that  giveth,  let  him  do  it  with 
liberality  ;  he  that  ruleth,  with  diligence ;  he  that  sheweth  mercy,  with 
cheerfulness”  (Romans  xii.  4-8.) 

These  passages  are  only  specimens  of  a  large  number  which 
show  conclusively  that  according  to  Holy  Scripture  the  Church 
is  a  divine  institution,  pervaded  by  divine  grace,  and  flowing 


76 


THE  DEFENCE  OF  PROFESSOR  BRIGGS 


with  divine  authority  in  a  myriad  rills  to  quicken  and  enrich 
the  people  of  God.  If  this  court  could  go  so  far  astray  from  the 
Bible  and  the  Confession  as  to  convict  me  of  heresy  for  assert¬ 
ing  that  the  Church  is  a  great  fountain  of  divine  authority,  you 
would  do  me  a  very  great  honor.  But  that  honor  would  be 
embittered  by  the  disgrace  of  a  Church  ivhich  I  love. 

The  Case  of  Newman 

I  have  shown  you  who  the  true  heretics  are,  as  regards  the 
main  item  of  the  charge.  It  is  now  necessary  for  me  to  test 
the  invalid  inference  attributed  to  me.  The  charge  is  that  I 
teach  that  “the  Church  is  a  fountain  of  divine  authority, 
ivhich  apart  from  the  Holy  Scripture ,  may  and  does  savingly 
enlighten  men.” 

It  is  difficult  for  me  to  understand  what  the  prosecution 
mean  by  “  apart  from  Holy  Scripture  may  and  does  savingly 
enlighten  men.”  I  turn  to  Specification  II.  of  the  original 
Charge,  for  light.  It  reads  as  follows : 

“  Dr.  Briggs  affirms  that,  in  the  case  of  some,  the  Holy  Scrip¬ 
tures  are  not  sufficient  to  give  that  knowledge  of  God  and  His 
will,  which  is  necessary  unto  salvation,  even  though  they  strive 
never  so  hard;  and  that  such  persons,  setting  aside  the 
supreme  authority  of  the  Word  of  God,  can  obtain  that  saving 
knowledge  of  Him  through  the  Church.” 

I  understand,  therefore,  that  “  apart  from”  is  a  milder  form  of 
“setting  aside  the  supreme  authority  of  the  Word  of  God.” 
Three  passages  from  my  Inaugural  Address  are  cited  as  proof. 
But  they  do  not  prove  it.  The  charge  imputes  to  me  what  I 
have  never  taught  either  directly  or  indirectly.  This  explana¬ 
tion  is  sufficient  according  to  law  to  compel  you  to  vote  me 
guiltless,  and  I  might  simply  rest  my  case  upon  it.  But  I  pre¬ 
fer  to  explain  my  statement  and  show  you  how  the  prosecution 
pervert  it.  The  citation  from  the  Inaugural  and  the  use  made 
of  it  in  their  argument  show  that  the  prosecution  have  the  late 
Cardinal  Newman  in  mind.  He  was  my  sole  illustration  under 
the  head.  If  they  fail  in  this  illustration,  they  have  no  other. 

(a)  I  said  that  Newman  could  not  reach  certainty  through 
the  Bible  or  the  Reason.  I  did  not  say  that  he  did  not  obtain 


THE  CHURCH 


•  t 


77 


the  saving  knowledge  of  God  through  the  Bible,  or  that  the 
Church  savingly  enlightened  him  apart  from  the  Bible.  I  used 
him  as  a  modern  example  of  one  who  found  the  Church  a  great 
fountain  of  divine  authority.  Nothing  whatever  was  said  of 
the  sufficiency  or  insufficiency  of  Holy  Scripture,  or  of  saving 
enlightenment  from  any  source  whatever.  Newman  never  de¬ 
nied  the  sufficiency  of  Holy  Scripture  to  give  that  knowledge 
of  God  and  His  will  which  is  necessary  unto  salvation,  or  to 
savingly  enlighten  men;  and  I  never  have  denied  it.  The 
prosecution  make  no  difference  between  saving  enlightenment 
and  certainty.  There  is  a  great  difference  between  them.  If 
they  had  known  the  18th  chapter  of  our  Confession,  they  could 
never  have  made  such  a  blunder.  Religious  certainty  is  not 
necessary  to  salvation.  Saving  enlightenment,  the  knowledge 
sufficient  unto  salvation,  according  to  Calvin istic  principles  does 
not  bear  certainty  with  it.  As  the  Confession  says : 

“This  infallible  assurance  doth  not  so  belong  to  the  essence  of  faith, 
but  that  a  true  believer  may  wait  long,  and  conflict  with  many  difficul¬ 
ties  before  he  be  partaker  of  it :  yet,  being  enabled  by  the  Spirit  to  know 
the  things  which  are  freely  given  him  of  God,  he  may,  without  extra¬ 
ordinary  revelation,  in  the  right  use  of  ordinary  means,  attain  thereunto. 
And  therefore  it  is  the  duty  of  every  one  to  give  all  diligence  to  make 
his  calling  and  election  sure ;  that  thereby  his  heart  may  be  enlarged  in 
peace  and  joy  in  the  Holy  Ghost,  in  love  and  thankfulness  to  God,  and 
in  strength  and  cheerfulness  in  the  duties  of  obedience,  the  proper  fruits 
of  this  assurance :  so  far  is  it  from  inclining  men  to  looseness  ” 
(XVIII.  3). 

“True  believers  may  have  the  assurance  of  their  salvation  divers  ways 
shaken,  diminished,  and  intermitted :  as,  by  negligence  in  preserving  of 
it ;  by  falling  into  some  special  sin,  which  woundeth  the  conscience, 
and  grieveth  the  Spirit ;  by  some  sudden  or  vehement  temptation ;  by 
God’s  withdrawing  the  light  of  his  countenance,  and  suffering  even  such 
as  fear  him  to  walk  in  darkness  and  to  have  no  light :  yet  are  they  never 
utterly  destitute  of  that  seed  of  God,  and  life  of  faith ;  that  love  of  Christ 
and  the  brethren  ;  that  sincerity  of  heart  and  conscience  of  duty  ;  out  of 
which,  by  the  operation  of  the  Spirit,  this  assurance  may  in  due  time  be 
revived,  and  by  the  which,  in  the  mean  time,  they  are  supported  from 
utter  despair  ”  (XVIII.  4) . 


Simple  faith  contains  knowledge  sufficient  unto  salvation,  but 
only  a  faith  which  is  grown  to  be  strong,  clear-eyed,  and  fruit¬ 
ful  has  infallible  assurance  or  certainty  of  salvation.  I  said 


78 


THE  DEFENCE  OF  PROFESSOR  BRIGGS 


that  Newman  did  not  get  this  certainty  through  the  Bible  and 
the  Reason,  but  that  he  did  get  it  through  the  Church.  The 
prosecution  seem  to  ignore  this  certainty.  They  say  nothing 
about  it.  It  seems  incredible  that  they  should  ignore  the  dif¬ 
ference  between  saving  enlightenment  and  certainty.  They 
could  not  say  that  “certainty  of  salvation  can  come  only 
through  Holy  Scripture  ”  ?  The  Confession  so  clearly  teaches 
the  reverse  of  it  and  Christian  experience  confirms  the  Confes¬ 
sion.  It  is  sufficient  to  refer  to  the  sacrament  of  the  Lord’s 
Supper.  The  Confession  says  that  Christ  is  “  as  really,  but 
spiritually  present  to  the  faith  of  believers  in  that  ordinance, 
as  the  elements  themselves  are  to  their  outward  senses  ” 
(XXIX.  7). 

If  this  be  a  true  statement,  religious  certainty  is  communi¬ 
cated  to  the  faith  of  believers  by  the  really  present  Christ.  The 
Lord’s  Supper  is  a  confirming  and  sealing  ordinance. 

But  if  any  one  should  say  Newman  did  not  find  certainty  in 
the  sacrament,  let  him  consider  the  further  statement  of  the 
Confession : 

“Unto  this  catholic  visible  church,  Christ  hath  given  the  ministry, 
oracles,  and  ordinances  of  God,  for  the  gathering  and  perfecting  of  the 
saints,  in  this  life,  to  the  end  of  the  world :  and  doth  by  his  own  pres¬ 
ence  and  Spirit  according  to  his  promise,  make  them  effectual  thereunto  ” 
(XXV.  3). 

If  Christ  “  doth  by  His  own  presence  and  Spirit,  according  to 
His  promise,  make  the  ministry  and  the  ordinances  of  God 
committed  to  the  Church  effectual  for  the  gathering  and  per¬ 
fecting  of  the  saints,”  does  He  not  give  religious  certainty 
through  the  Church?  He  might  gather  the  saints  by  simply 
giving  them  a  saving  enlightenment,  or  a  knowledge  of  God 
sufficient  unto  salvation ;  but  He  could  not  perfect  the  saints 
unless  He  gave  them  also  certainty,  the  assurance  of  grace  and 
salvation.  What  I  said  about  Newman  is  therefore  strictly  in 
accordance  with  the  Confession. 

The  Case  of  Spurgeon 

The  prosecution  use  the  passage  from  the  Inaugural  re¬ 
ferring  to  Spurgeon,  under  both  charges.  They  harp  upon  it 


THE  CHURCH 


79 


in  their  argument  to  excite  prejudice  against  me.  What  I 
said  about  Spurgeon  may  not  be  pleasing  to  the  prosecution. 
It  may  be  very  distasteful  to  many  members  of  the  Presbytery. 
But  is  it  not  strictly  true?  Is  it  not  a  fact  that  Spurgeon  is  an 
example  of  the  modern  evangelical?  Did  he  not  assail  the 
Church  and  the  Reason  in  the  interest  of  the  authority  of  Holy 
Scripture?  These  are  well-known  weaknesses  of  the  great 
preacher.  But  he  had  so  many  excellent  Christian  qualities 
that  the  world  pardons  his  weakness  in  the  matters  referred  to 
and  honors  him  as  the  noblest  evangelical  of  them  all.  It  may 
seem  strange  to  some  of  you  that  u  the  average  opinion  of  the 
Christian  world  would  not  assign  him  a  higher  place  in  the 
kingdom  of  God  than  Martineau  or  Newman.”  But  a  little 
reflection  ought  to  convince  you  that  it  is  so.  Spurgeon  is  the 
hero  of  the  Evangelical  party  in  the  Church.  He  was  gen¬ 
erally  esteemed  to  be  the  greatest  preacher  of  the  gospel  in  our 
generation.  His  sermons  have  been  of  incalculable  benefit  to 
multitudes.  I  yield  to  none  in  admiration  of  Spurgeon  as  a 
master  of  sacred  eloquence.  But  any  one  who  understands  the 
state  of  religious  opinion  in  England  knows  that  Spurgeon  only 
represented  a  party  among  the  Non-conformists,  and  that  a 
considerable  proportion  of  them  would  not  assign  him  a  higher 
place  than  Martineau  or  Newman.  He  lived  to  find  himself 
in  a  hopeless  minority  in  his  own  denomination  and  to  separate 
from  the  mass  of  the  Non-conformists,  whom  he  accused  of 
being  on  the  “  down  grade.  ”  He  was  not  a  master  of  Christian 
theology,  and,  therefore,  so  soon  as  he  went  out  of  his  sphere  to 
teach  men  wiser  than  himself  he  made  a  sad  failure  among 
those  who  were  nearest  to  him  in  denominational  affinities.  In 
the  average  opinion  of  the  Church  of  England,  Spurgeon  would 
certainly  assume  the  lowest  place  of  the  three.  Among  Roman 
Catholics,  the  world  over,  Newman  would  have  the  pre-emi¬ 
nence.  Among  German  Protestants,  Martineau  would  hold 
the  highest  rank.  In  North  America,  without  doubt,  Spurgeon 
is  in  greatest  estimation.  I  did  not  assign  Spurgeon  a  lower 
place  than  Newman  or  Martineau.  I  did  not  say  that  in  the 
opinion  of  the  Christian  world  he  would  take  the  lowest  place 
of  the  three.  I  did  not  give  the  average  opinion  of  the  United 
States,  or  of  Non-conforming  England,  or  of  Presbyterian  Scot- 


80 


THE  DEFENCE  OF  PROFESSOR  BRIGGS 


land,  or  of  Ulster,  or  of  the  Evangelical  party ;  but  I  said  cor¬ 
rectly  :  “  The  average  opinion  of  the  Christian  world  would  not 
assign  him  a  higher  place  in  the  kingdom  of  God  than  Marti- 
neau  or  Newman.”  But  suppose  I  made  a  mistake  in  statistics, 
and  my  opinion  is  wide  of  the  facts,  is  such  a  mistake  heresy? 
Am  I  responsible  for  the  facts?  Am  I  to  blame  if  Spurgeon  in 
public  estimation  shares  the  throne  with  Martineau  and  New¬ 
man?  Is  it  any  merit  of  mine  if  he  be  exalted  above  them? 
Can  I  change  the  facts  by  my  statements  about  them?  Where 
do  they  find  in  Holy  Scripture  the  authority  for  exalting  Spur¬ 
geon  above  Martineau  and  Newman?  Where  do  they  find  in 
the  W estminster  Confession  that  the  modern  Evangelical  is  the 
most  favored  of  the  children  of  God?  Possibly  the  prosecution 
by  some  cabalistic  art  or  jugglery  of  exegesis  may  surprise  us 
by  such  evidence ;  but  they  were  bound  to  present  such  extra¬ 
ordinary  facts  in  order  that  we  might  give  them  due  consider¬ 
ation  and  deliberate  answer.  Their  proofs  do  not  exclude  New¬ 
man  from  the  kingdom  of  God.  They  do  not  put  him  beneath 
the  feet  of  Spurgeon. 

As  Christian  ministers  I  ask  you,  ought  we  not  to  estimate 
these  three  representative  Christians  of  our  time  with  Chris¬ 
tian  love?  And  is  it  not  Christian  love  to  say,  we  refuse  to 
determine  which  of  them  has  the  highest  place  in  the  kingdom 
of  God?  We  recognize  each  as  a  prophet  to  our  generation. 
We  see  in  each  a  man  who  has  enjoyed  the  light  of  the  divine 
countenance  and  who  has  reflected  in  his  life  and  character  the 
graces  of  a  child  of  God. 

I  asked  the  question  in  the  Inaugural,  and  I  ask  it  again  of 
this  court,  whether  in  view  of  all  the  facts  adduced,  “  may  we 
not  conclude,  on  the  whole,  that  these  three  representative  Chris¬ 
tians  of  our  time  have,  each  in  his  own  way,  found  God  and 
rested  on  divine  authority?”  Let  each  juror  answer  this  ques¬ 
tion  for  himself.  You  must  answer  it  in  your  verdict.  You 
must  either  say  with  me,  “  Yes,  we  may  conclude  that  Spurgeon, 
Newman,  and  Martineau  have  rested  on  divine  authority;”  or 
you  must  say  with  the  prosecution,  “  No !  Spurgeon  found  God 
in  the  Bible,  but  Newman  did  not  find  God  in  the  Church,  and 
Martineau  did  not  find  God  in  the  Reason.  They  were  mis¬ 
taken  in  their  religious  experience.  They  were  without  God 


THE  CHURCH 


81 


and  without  divine  authority  for  their  faith  and  life.  ”  You  can¬ 
not  evade  the  issue.  Your  verdict  will  be  interpreted  by  the 
Christian  world  as  a  yes  or  no  to  the  question.  1  rejoice  in 
this  issue.  Again  I  say ,  Yes;  and  I  would  deliberately  choose 
the  company  for  time  and  for  eternity  of  Martineau  and  Yew- 
man  rather  than  of  such  loveless  persons  as  would  cast  them 
out  of  the  congregation  of  the  faithful. 

Co-ordinating  the  Fountains 

I  said  in  the  Inaugural  that  “  Men  are  influenced  by  their  tem¬ 
peraments  and  environments  which  of  the  three  ways  of  access 
to  God  they  may  pursue.”  This  was  made  the  ground  of  a  dis¬ 
tinct  specification  under  the  original  1st  Charge.  The  sentence 
is  cited  among  the  extracts  in  the  specification,  and  may  therefore 
be  regarded  as  one  of  my  declarations  which  is  offered  as  contrary 
to  essential  doctrine.  It  will  explain  my  meaning  over  against 
misrepresentations  of  it  which  were  made  in  specification  of  the 
original  first  charge  and  in  the  argument  of  the  prosecution. 

I  did  not  say  that  men  were  determined  by  their  environ¬ 
ments,  but  influenced  by  their  environments.  Yo  man  ever 
came  to  God  without  the  prevenient  call  of  God’s  Spirit.  Yo 
one  ever  found  God  in  the  Reason  until  God  Himself  entered 
into  the  Reason  to  make  Himself  known  there.  Yo  one  ever 
found  God  in  the  Bible  until  the  Holy  Spirit  pointed  the  way. 
Yo  one  ever  found  God  in  the  Church,  until  Christ’s  touch 
opened  his  eyes.  Men  are  indeed  influenced  by  their  tempera¬ 
ments  and  environments.  That  is  a  matter  of  common  experi¬ 
ence.  All  are  not  Churchmen ;  all  are  not  Evangelicals ;  all  are 
not  Rationalists.  But  all  may  be  Christians,  using  each  one  the 
avenue  of  religion  most  familiar  to  him  and  most  suited  to  him. 
But  in  any  case  it  is  the  divine  Spirit  who  determines  when, 
and  where,  and  how  the  effectual  call  shall  be  made;  and 
when,  and  where,  and  how  the  transforming  grace  shall  be 
imparted  and  the  infallible  assurance  of  faith  bestowed. 

It  is  said  that  I  am  co-ordinating  the  Bible,  the  Church,  and 
the  Reason.  The  prosecution  did  not  put  this  in  their  charge. 
But  they  have  put  it  into  the  minds  of  some  of  this  court  in 
their  argument  and  it  may  influence  your  decision. 

6 


S2 


THE  DEFENCE  OF  PROFESSOR  BRIGGS 


I  call  attention  to  the  fact  that  I  have  denied  more  than  once 
that  I  co-ordinated  the  three  fountains  of  divine  authority.  I 
denied  it  in  the  Appendix  to  the  second  edition  of  my  Inaugural 
as  follows :  “  I  did  not  say,  and  I  did  not  give  any  one  the  right 
to  infer  from  anything  whatever  in  the  Inaugural  Address,  or 
in  any  of  my  writings,  that  I  co-ordinated  the  Bible,  the 
Church,  and  the  Reason”  (p.  85). 

I  denied  it  again  in  my  lectures  on  “  The  Bible,  the  Church, 
and  the  Reason,”  where  I  said:  “The  Churchmen  have  exalted 
the  Church  above  the  Bible  and  the  Reason.  The  Rationalists 
have  exalted  the  Reason  above  the  Bible  and  the  Church. 
The  Evangelical  party  have  exalted  the  Bible  above  the  Church 
and  the  Reason ;  but  no  partjq  so  far  as  we  know,  has  made 
Bible,  Church,  and  Reason  co-ordinate,  that  is,  on  the  same 
level,  in  the  same  order,  of  equal,  independent  authority  ”  (p.  63) . 

And  again :  “  The  only  persons  so  far  as  I  know,  who  have 
ever  thought  of  co-ordinating  the  Bible,  the  Church,  and  the 
Reason  as  fountains  of  divine  authority,  are  some  recent  con¬ 
troversialists  who  impute  to  others  their  own  misconceptions, 
or  who,  after  the  manner  of  scholastic  logicians,  invent  imag¬ 
inary  opponents  in  order  to  show  their  dialectic  skill  in  destroy¬ 
ing  them”  (p.  210). 

You  cannot  constrain  me  to  accept  the  inferences  of  others. 
You  must  in  law  accept  my  explanations.  When  I  say,  “The 
Bible,  the  Church,  and  the  Reason  are  historically  three  great 
fountains  of  divine  authority,”  can  you  rightly  infer  that  I  co¬ 
ordinate  the  three?  How  about  the  apostle  John  in  the  1st 
epistle,  v.  8,  9,  when  he  says : 

“  For  there  are  three  who  bear  witness,  the  Spirit,  and  the  water,  and 
the  blood  :  and  the  three  agree  in  one.  If  we  receive  the  witness  of  men, 
the  witness  of  God  is  greater :  for  the  witness  of  God  is  this,  that  he 
hath  borne  witness  concerning  his  Son.  ” 

Are  the  Spirit,  the  water,  and  the  blood  co-ordinate  wit¬ 
nesses?  Listen  to  Bishop  Westcott. 

Westcott  argues  that  the  water  and  the  blood  refer  not  only 
to  the  baptism  of  Christ  and  the  atoning  blood  of  Christ  on  the 
cross,  but  to  the  two  sacraments:  “Just  as  the  Spirit  is  found 
to  be  personal  in  His  work  with  men,  so  also  the  water  and 
the  blood  speak  personally  through  those  in  whom  their  efficacy 


THE  CHURCH 


83 


is  realized.  The  participle  expresses  the  actual  delivery  of  the 
witness,  and  this  as  a  present,  continuous  action.  The  witness 
here  is  considered  manifestly  as  the  living  witness  of  the  Church 
and  not  as  the  historic  witness  of  the  gospels.  Through  believers 
these  three,  ‘the  Spirit,  and  the  water,  and  the  blood,’  perform  a 
work  not  for  believers  only,  but  for  the  world  (John  xvii.  20  f).” 
“The  threefold  witness  of  which  St.  John  has  spoken,  simply 
as  being  threefold,  satisfies  the  conditions  of  human  testimony. 
Much  more  then,  he  argues,  does  a  threefold  divine  witness 
meet  all  claims ;  and  such  a  witness  it  is  implied  we  have  in 
the  witness  of  the  Spirit,  the  water,  and  the  blood.  This  wit¬ 
ness  therefore  is  ‘greater’  than  the  witness  of  men  in  regard  to 
its  authority.” 

Here  we  have  three  witnesses  giving  divine  testimony  to  our 
Saviour,  without  any  reference  to  Holy  Scripture :  two  of  them 
the  sacraments,  and  therefore  necessarily  the  Church,  one  of 
them  the  divine  Spirit.  This  passage  not  only  shows  that 
there  can  be  three  witnesses  speaking  with  divine  authority 
and  yet  not  co-ordinate ;  but  it  also  shows  that  the  two  sacra¬ 
ments  of  the  Church  bear  in  them  and  with  them  divine  au¬ 
thority.  This  Presbytery  will  hardly  undertake  to  declare 
Bishop  Westcott  a  heretic,  especially  when  Luther  and  so  many 
of  the  Fathers  are  at  his  back. 

I  have  now  gone  over  the  four  specifications  of  the  two  charges, 
which  represent  that  the  doctrine  that  there  are  three  great 
fountains  of  divine  authority,  the  Bible,  the  Church,  and  the 
Reason,  is  irreconcilable  with  essential  and  necessary  doctrines 
of  the  Confession  and  of  Holy  Scripture.  If  they  are  incon¬ 
sistent  doctrines,  then  I  am  indeed  excluded  from  orthodoxy 
in  the  Presbyterian  Church.  If  they  are  not  inconsistent,  I  am 
not  heterodox  in  this  particular.  I  have  given  you  my  expla¬ 
nations  and  my  evidence.  It  is  for  you  to  give  the  verdict  in 
the  fear  of  God  and  subject  to  the  review  of  the  superior  courts 
of  the  Church.  Above  them  all  stands  the  supreme  court  of 
heaven,  the  tribunal  of  Jesus  Christ,  the  only  King  and  Head 
of  Plis  Church. 

High  over  high  is  watching. 

And  the  Highest  over  them. 

In  the  divine  presence  I  challenge  you  to  make  a  righteous 
verdict. 


84 


THE  DEFENCE  OF  PROFESSOR  BRIGGS 


Y 

THE  INERRANCY  OF  HOLY  SCRIPTURE 

Charge  III.  is  as  follows: 

“  The  Presbyterian  Church  in  the  United  States  of  America 
charges  the  Rev.  Charles  A.  Briggs,  D.D.,  being  a  Minister  of 
the  said  Church  and  a  member  of  the  Presbytery  of  New  York, 
with  teaching  that  errors  may  have  existed  in  the  original  text 
of  the  Holy  Scripture,  as  it  came  from  its  authors,  which  is  con¬ 
trary  to  the  essential  doctrine  taught  in  the  Holy  Scriptures 
and  in  the  Standards  of  the  said  Church,  that  the  Holy  Scrip¬ 
ture  is  the  Word  of  God  written,  immediately  inspired,  and  the 
rule  of  faith  and  practice.” 

I  shall  analyze  this  Charge  as  I  did  the  previous  two.  (1) 
The  Charge  alleges  three  offences.  It  alleges  that  the  doctrine 
taught  by  me  is  contrary  to  these  three  essential  doctrines — (a) 
that  Holy  Scripture  is  the  Word  of  God  written;  (6)  that  Holy 
Scripture  is  immediately  inspired;  and  (c)  that  Holy  Scripture 
is  the  rule  of  faith  and  practice. 

(2)  It  is  alleged  that  I  teach  “  that  errors  may  have  existed 
in  the  original  text  of  the  Holy  Scripture,  as  it  came  from  its 
authors.”  This  statement  of  my  doctrine  I  can  admit  as  fairly 
accurate.  But  when  we  look  at  the  specification,  notice  that  it 
consists  of  a  long  extract  from  the  Inaugural  Address.  You 
should  bear  in  mind  that  the  only  proper  use  of  this  extract  is 
to  prove  the  doctrine  attributed  to  me  in  the  Charge,  which 
doctrine  I  admit.  You  have  no  right  to  use  it  to  impute  to  me 
any  other  objectionable  doctrine.  You  have  no  right  to  vote 
me  guilty  on  the  ground  of  amr  other  objection  to  my  words  than 
that  stated  in  the  Charge.  This  is  all  the  more  important  in 
view  of  the  irrelevant  passages  of  Scripture  cited  to  sustain  the 
Charge,  which  may  be  interpreted  by  you  in  a  sense  different 
from  the  true  sense.  You  have  no  right  to  vote  me  guilty  on  the 
basis  of  these  passages.  You  can  consider  nothing  but  my 
doctrine  as  stated  in  the  Charge  and  determine  whether  that  is 
contrary  or  not  contrary  to  the  essential  doctrines  named  in  the 
Charge. 

(3)  The  only  question  which  need  concern  us,  therefore,  is 


THE  INERRANCY  OF  HOLY  SCRIPTURE 


85 


whether  my  doctrine  is  contrary  to  any  one,  or  any  two,  or  all 
three  of  the  essential  doctrines  of  the  Confession  stated  in  the 
Charge.  Doubtless  the  prosecution  think  that  there  is  contra¬ 
diction  here;  and  it  may  be  that  a  majority  of  this  Presbytery 
think  so.  You  may  agree  with  a  recent  opinion  that  “  a  proved 
error  in  Scripture  contradicts  not  only  our  doctrine ,  but  the 
Scripture' s  claims ,  and  therefore  its  inspiration  in  making 
those  claims  ” 

But  those  who  uttered  these  words  had  no  authority  to  make 
dogma  for  the  Presbyterian  Church.  Their  opinion  is  worth  no 
more  than  that  of  other  theologians  of  equal  rank.  It  is  worth 
much  less  than  the  authority  of  the  much  greater  and  more 
widely  honored  divines  whose  names  are  given  in  my  volume 
on  “The  Bible,  the  Church,  and  the  Reason,”  as  holding  to 
errors  in  Holy  Scripture  (pp.  215-235). 

You  may  cite  the  deliverance  of  the  last  General  Assembly 
against  me: 

“The  General  Assembly  would  remind  all  under  its  care  that  it  is  a 
fundamental  doctrine  that  the  Old  and  New  Testaments  are  the  inspired 
and  infallible  Word  of  God.  Our  Church  holds  that  the  inspired  Word, 
as  it  came  from  God,  is  without  error.  The  assertion  of  the  contrary  can¬ 
not  but  shake  the  confidence  of  the  people  in  the  sacred  Books.  All  who 
enter  office  in  our  Church  solemnly  profess  to  receive  them  as  the  only 
infallible  rule  of  faith  and  practice.  If  they  change  their  belief  on  this 
point  Christian  honor  demands  that  they  should  withdraw  from  our 
ministry.  They  have  no  right  to  use  the  pulpit  or  the  chair  of  the  pro¬ 
fessor  for  the  dissemination  of  their  errors  until  they  are  dealt  with  by 
the  slow  process  of  discipline.  But  if  any  do  so  act,  their  Presbyteries 
should  speedily  interpose,  and  deal  with  them  for  violation  of  ordination 
vows.  The  vow  taken  at  the  beginning  is  obligatory  until  the  party 
taking  it  is  honorably  and  properly  released.  The  General  Assembly  en¬ 
joins  upon  all  ministers,  elders,  and  Presbyteries,  to  be  faithful  to  the 
duty  here  imposed  ”  (Minutes,  pp.  179,  180) . 

In  response  to  this  deliverance  of  the  last  General  Assembly, 
I  beg  leave  to  say :  (a)  The  General  Assembly  when  it  makes  a 

deliverance  gives  the  opinion  of  all  those  who  may  be  present  and 
who  may  consent  to  it.  Such  deliverance  has  no  more  weight 
than  the  names  of  such  persons  can  give  it.  It  does  not  bind  the 
minority,  still  less  those  who  were  absent  when  the  vote  was 
taken.  ( b )  The  General  Assembly  has  no  authority  under  the 
constitution  to  make  dogma  by  deliverance,  (c)  The  General 


86 


THE  DEFENCE  OF  PROFESSOR  BRIGGS 


Assembly  has  no  authority  under  the  constitution  to  give  an  in¬ 
terpretation  of  the  doctrine  of  the  Church  by  deliverance,  and  im¬ 
pose  such  interpretation  upon  the  Presbyteries  and  the  ministry. 
(d)  It  was  a  gross  breach  of  propriety  and  a  flagrant  violation 
of  right  for  the  General  Assembly  to  attempt  to  decide  a  case 
by  deliverance  which  it  had  a  few  hours  previous  directed  to 
be  approached  by  judicial  process.  ( e )  The  ordination  vow  is 
just  as  binding  on  the  General  Assembly  which  imposes  it  as 
it  is  upon  the  minister  who  takes  it.  The  General  Assembly 
ought  not  to  take  the  initiative  in  such  a  violation  of  obligation. 
(/)  If  the  Presbyterian  Church  in  the  United  States  of  America 
should  ever  decide  in  a  judicial  case  in  accordance  with  said 
deliverance,  no  self-respecting  Biblical  scholar  could  for  a 
moment  remain  in  that  branch  of  the  Presbyterian  Church. 
He  would  need  no  reminder,  still  less  a  process  of  discipline,  to 
induce  him  to  withdraw  and  connect  himself  with  a  Church 
that  was  true  to  its  constitution  and  its  history. 

I  have  put  in  evidence,  and  have  asked  you,  in  order  to  save 
valuable  time,  to  read  instead  of  reading  them  myself,  all  those 
extracts  given  in  “The  Bible,  the  Church,  and  the  Reason,”  on 
pages  215-235;  from  Origen,  Jerome,  and  Augustine,  among 
the  Fathers ;  from  Luther  and  Calvin,  among  the  Reformers ; 
from  Baxter  and  Rutherford  among  the  Presbyterians  of  the 
17th  century;  from  Van  Oosterzee  of  the  Reformed  Church  of 
Holland;  from  Marcus  Dods,  A.  B.  Bruce,  James  Iverach,  pro¬ 
fessors  of  the  Free  Church  of  Scotland ;  from  A.  H.  Cliarteris, 
moderator  of  the  General  Assembly  of  the  Church  of  Scotland ; 
from  the  Anglicans,  Sanday  and  Gore  of  Oxford  and  Plummer  of 
Durham;  from  Prof.  Beet  of  the  English  Wesleyans;  from 
Alfred  Cave  of  the  English  Independents ;  from  our  American 
scholars,  Thayer,  W.  R.  Huntington,  Apple,  Fisher,  Vincent, 
and  Fairchild. 

These  citations  might  be  increased  to  an  enormous  extent.  It 
would  not  take  a  scholar  long  to  decide  between  the  authority  of 
the  members  of  the  General  Assembly  at  Portland  and  the  au¬ 
thority  of  these  Fathers,  Reformers,  Puritans,  and  modern  di¬ 
vines,  who  have  given  such  emphatic  statements  of  their  opinion. 

The  court  will  see  the  great  difficulty  of  the  task  now  imposed 
upon  me  in  view  of  this  deliverance  of  the  General  Assembly. 


THE  INERRANCY  OE  HOLY  SCRIPTURE 


87 


And  yet  I  do  not  hesitate  to  undertake  it  in  the  fear  of  God  and 
with  a  firm  conviction  that  I  can  show  you  that  the  General 
Assembly  at  Portland  by  this  deliverance  violated  the  constitu¬ 
tion  of  our  Church  and  promulgated  doctrine  which  is  not 
authorized  by  Scripture  or  our  Standards.  Your  attention  is 
again  called  to  the  principle  established  in  the  introduction  to 
my  defence.  I  showed  you  that  it  was  not  sufficient  that  a 
doctrine  should  be  essential  and  necessary  in  your  opinion.  It 
must  be  essential  and  necessary  to  the  W estminster  system.  It  is 
not  enough  that  you,  or  certain  dogmatic  teachers,  or  the  General 
Assembly  by  a  ma  jority  vote,  should  declare  a  certain  doctrine  to 
be  inconsistent  with  an  essential  doctrine  of  the  Westminster 
Confession.  It  must  be  shown  that  it  is  really  inconsistent  with 
the  Westminster  system  itself.  You  cannot  insist  that  your 
deductions  and  reasonings  should  be  accepted  by  me,  if  I  hold 
the  opinion  that  your  reasonings  and  deductions  are  false.  If 
I  can  hold  the  two  doctrines  without  regarding  them  as  incon-  ^ 
sistent,  you  cannot  make  them  inconsistent  to  me.  You  maj7 
exact  of  me  that  I  shall  be  faithful  to  the  doctrine  of  the  true 
and  full  inspiration  of  the  Word  of  God  written.  But  you  can¬ 
not  exact  of  me  that  I  shall  say  there  are  no  errors  in  Holy 
Scripture,  for  the  reason  that  the  Confession  does  not  assert 
this  and  I  am  not  bound  to  your  views  of  consistency  or  incon-' 
sistency — but  only  to  the  Confession  and  to  my  own  judgment. 
If  the  prosecution  had  claimed  and  had  tried  to  prove  that  the 
Confession  teaches  as  an  essential  doctrine  attested  by  Holy 
Scripture  that  there  are  no  errors  in  Holy  Scripture,  then  it 
would  have  been  easy  to  test  every  such  citation  and  show  that  no 
such  teaching  can  be  found.  In  that  they  propose  this  doctrine 
as  a  consequence  of  the  statements  of  the  Confession  as  to  the 
“Word  of  God  written”  and  that  the  “Holy  Scriptures  are  the 
only  infallible  rule  of  faith  and  practice,”  they  rest  their  case 
upon  the  logical  consequences  of  Confessional  statements,  in¬ 
stead  of  the  Confessional  statements  themselves.  But  we  are 
bound  as  Presbyterians  only  to  the  essential  and  necessary 
articles  of  the  Westminster  Confession.  We  are  not  bound  to 
unnecessary  and  unessential  statements  of  the  Confession. 
Still  less  are  we  bound  to  statements  which  are  not  in  the  Con¬ 
fession  at  all,  but  which  are  regarded  as  logical  deductions  * 


88 


THE  DEFENCE  OF  PROFESSOR  BRIGGS 


from  the  Confession  by  a  party  in  the  Church.  If  we  are  to  be 
held  to  all  the  supposed  logical  consequences  of  the  Westminster 
Confession,  do  you  not  see  that  you  will  be  held  by  the  dom¬ 
inant  party  to  the  whole  system  of  scholastic  dogma  taught  in 
certain  schools  of  theology?  By  supposed  logical  deductions, 
the  Scriptures  and  the  Confession  will  be  overlaid  by  a  crust  of 

✓  traditional  opinion  which  may  go  on  developing  into  thicker 

✓  and  more  comprehensive  forms  until  Confession  and  Bible  are 
buried  under  a  mountain  of  scholasticism. 

If  the  prosecution  should  succeed  in  establishing  this  dogma 
v  of  the  inerrancy  of  Scripture  as  the  official  doctrine  of  the 
Church,  and  all  those  who  cannot  subscribe  to  it  should  retire, 
how  long  would  it  be  before  they  would  impose  the  dogma  of 
reprobation  upon  a  weakened  and  crippled  Church  and  make 
revision  of  the  Confession  an  impossibility?  There  are  some 
who  think  this  is  the  real  purpose  of  the  prosecuting  committee 
and  of  those  who  are  at  their  back  in  this  trial. 

Inasmuch  as  there  is  such  a  misapprehension  of  the  facts  of 
the  case,  I  must  go  into  this  question  to  some  length  and  with 
much  care.  I  shall  first  take  up  the  question  of  the  consistency 
of  the  two  doctrines,  then  consider  the  Confessional  statements, 
and  finally  give  the  Biblical  evidence. 

I. — What  is  Plenary  Inspiration? 

I  agree  to  the  doctrines  (1)  that  “  Holy  Scripture  is  the  Word 
of  God  written;”  (2)  “immediately  inspired;”  and  (3)  “the 
rule  of  faith  and  practice.” 

Do  these  statements  necessarily  involve  the  doctrine  that 
there  are  no  errors  in  Holy  Scripture?  (a)  The  doctrine  that 
“  the  Holy  Scriptures  are  the  rule  of  faith  and  practice  ”  clearly 
does  not  involve  that  “  the  Holy  Scriptures  are  the  rule  in  mat¬ 
ters  other  than  faith  and  practice.”  If  I  find  fallibility  in  Holy 
Scripture  in  matters  of  faith  and  practice,  I  am  inconsistent 
with  the  Confession.  But,  in  the  Inaugural,  I  expressly  dis¬ 
claimed  such  fallibility.  This  disclaimer  is  recognized  in  the 
citations  from  my  Inaugural  given  by  the  prosecution : 

“The  Bible  has  maintained  its  authority  with  the  best  scholars  of  our 
time,  who  with  open  minds  have  been  willing  to  recognize  any  error 


THE  INERRANCY  OF  HOLY  SCRIPTURE 


89 


that  might  be  pointed  out  by  historical  criticism  ;  for  these  errors  are  all 
in  the  circumstantials  and  not  in  the  essentials  ;  they  are  in  the  human 
setting,  not  in  the  precious  jewel  itself ;  they  are  found  in  that  section  of 
the  Bible  that  theologians  commonly  account  for  from  the  providential 
superintendence  of  the  mind  of  the  Author  as  distinguished  from  divine 
revelation  itself.  It  may  be  that  this  providential  superintendence  gives 
infallible  guidance  in  every  particular ;  and  it  may  be  that  it  differs  but 
little,  if  at  all,  from  the  providential  superintendence  of  the  fathers  and 
schoolmen  and  theologians  of  the  Christian  Church.  It  is  not  important 
for  our  purpose  that  we  should  decide  this  question.  If  we  should  aban¬ 
don  the  whole  field  of  providential  superintendence  so  far  as  inspiration 
and  divine  authority  are  concerned,  and  limit  divine  inspiration  and 
authority  to  the  essential  contents  of  the  Bible,  to  its  religion,  faith,  and 
morals,  we  would  still  have  ample  room  to  seek  divine  authority  where 
alone  it  is  essential,  or  even  important,  in  the  teaching  that  guides  our 
devotions,  our  thinking,  and  our  conduct  ”  (p.  22) . 

The  only  errors  I  have  found  or  ever  recognized  in  Holy 
Scripture  have  been  beyond  the  range  of  faith  and  practice,  and 
therefore  they  do  not  impair  the  infallibility  of  Holy  Scripture 
as  a  rule  of  faith  and  practice. 

But  it  is  claimed  that  if  I  recognize  errors  in  matters  beyond 
the  range  of  faith  and  practice,  I  excite  suspicion  as  to  the  in¬ 
fallibility  of  Holy  Scripture  within  the  range  of  faith  and  prac¬ 
tice.  You  are  entitled  to  that  opinion  for  yourselves,  but  you 
have  no  right  to  force  your  opinion  upon  me.  The  Confession 
does  not  say  “rule  of  all  things,”  but  “the  rule  of  faith  and 
practice.  ”  You  must  judge  by  the  Confession,  not  by  your  fears, 
or  your  impressions,  or  by  the  conclusions  you  have  made.  But 
is  it  true  that  fallibility  in  the  Bible  in  matters  beyond  the 
scope  of  the  divine  revelation  impairs  the  infallibility  in  mat¬ 
ters  within  the  scope  of  divine  revelation?  We  claim  that  it 
does  not.  The  sacred  writings  were  not  composed  in  heaven 
by  the  Holy  Spirit,  they  were  not  sent  down  from  heaven  by 
angel  hands,  they  were  not  committed  to  the  care  of  perfect 
men,  they  were  not  kept  by  a  succession  of  perfect  priests  from 
that  moment  until  the  present  time.  If  these  had  been  the  facts 
in  the  case,  we  might  have  had  a  Bible  infallible  in  every  par¬ 
ticular.  But  none  of  these  things  are  true.  God  gave  His 
Holy  Word  to  men  in  an  entirely  different  way.  He  used  the 
human  reason  and  all  the  faculties  of  imperfect  human  nature. 
He  used  the  voice  and  hands  of  imperfect  men.  He  allowed 


90 


THE  DEFENCE  OF  PROFESSOR  BRIGGS 


the  sacred  writings  to  be  edited  and  re-edited,  arranged  and 
rearranged  and  rearranged  again  by  imperfect  scribes.  It  is 
improbable  that  such  imperfect  instrumentalities  should  attain 
perfect  results.  It  was  improbable  that  fallible  men  should 
produce  a  series  of  writings  infallible  in  every  respect.  It  was 
sufficient  that  divine  inspiration  and  the  guidance  of  the  Holy 
Spirit  should  make  their  writings  an  infallible  rule  of  faith  and 
practice,  and  that  the  divine  energy  should  push  the  human  and 
the  fallible  into  the  external  forms,  into  the  unessential  and 
unnecessary  matters,  into  the  human  setting  of  the  divine  ideals. 
As  the  river  of  life  flowing  forth  from  the  throne  of  God,  ac¬ 
cording  to  Ezekiel’s  Vision,  entering  into  the  Dead  Sea  quick¬ 
ens  its  waters  and  fills  them  with  new  life,  so  that  “  everything 
shall  live  whithersoever  the  river  cometh  ”  .  .  .  “  But  the  miry 
places  thereof  and  the  marshes  thereof  shall  not  be  healed” 
(Ez.  xlvii.  9-11) ;  so  may  it  be  with  that  divine  influence  which 
we  call  inspiration,  when  it  flows  into  a  man.  It  quickens  and 
enriches  his  whole  nature,  his  experience,  his  utterance,  his  ex¬ 
pressions,  with  truth  and  life  divine,  and  yet  leaves  some  hu¬ 
man  infirmities  unhealed  in  order  that  the  revelation  may  be 
essentially  divine  and  infallible  and  yet  bear  traces  of  the 
human  and  fallible  into  the  midst  of  which  it  came. 

You  will  sometimes  hear  the  proverb  cited:  “Falsus  in  uno, 
falsus  in  omnibus.”  But  this  ancient  proverb  has  no  manner 
of  application  to  the  matter  in  hand.  It  does  not  refer  to  errors 
of  ignorance  or  inadvertence,  but  to  errors  of  deceit  and  false¬ 
hood.  If  it  could  be  shown  that  the  writings  of  the  Old  Testa¬ 
ment,  any  of  them,  were  written  with  the  intent  of  deceiving 
and  misleading  men,  then  we  could  not  trust  them  as  infallible 
in  matters  of  faith  and  practice.  But  the  errors  that  have  been 
found  in  the  Bible  are  not  errors  of  deceit  but  of  inadvertence, 
not  of  falsehood  but  of  lack  of  knowledge.  A  witness  in  a  court 
of  justice  is  not  rejected  because  he  betrays  ignorance  and  slips 
into  errors  of  detail,  which  may  have  resulted  from  carelessness 
and  inattention.  His  evidence  is  all  the  stronger  for  these 
marks  of  simplicity  and  the  faults  of  common  people.  A  wit¬ 
ness  who  makes  no  mistake  is  open  to  suspicion,  lest  his  testi¬ 
mony  may  have  been  prepared  for  the  occasion  by  his  advocate 
or  himself.  Historical  documents  are  not  cast  aside  as  worth- 


THE  INERRANCY  OF  HOLY  SCRIPTURE 


91 


less  because  they  contain  errors.  No  historic  document  can  be 
found  that  is  altogether  infallible.  Even  the  Pope  of  Rome 
does  not  claim  infallibility  in  all  things,  in  his  utterances  at  the 
table  and  on  the  street,  in  his  conversation  with  his  friends 
about  literature,  art,  science,  or  philosophy,  war,  or  finance, 
but  only  when  sitting  in  the  chair  of  St.  Peter  he  speaks,  ex 
cathedra ,  as  the  vicar  of  Christ,  in  his  official  position  as  the 
supreme  head  of  the  Church  in  matters  of  faith  and  morals.  I 
refer  you  to  the  testimony  presented  to  the  court  and  read  from 
“Biblical  Study,”  pp.  240-243,  and  “The  Bible,  the  Church, 
and  the  Reason,”  pp.  115-117,  as  setting  forth  the  views  which 
I  have  held  for  many  years  on  this  subject,  and  I  ask  you  to 
consider  whether  they  are  in  conflict  with  the  Biblical  or 
Confessional  doctrine  of  the  rule  of  faith. 

It  is  evident  that  I  and  others  can  hold  that  Holy  Scripture 
is  “the  only  infallible  rule  of  faith  and  practice,”  and  yet  hold 
that  there  are  errors  in  Holy  Scripture  in  matters  that  do  not 
in  any  way  impair  its  infallibility  in  matters  of  faith  and 
practice. 

(b)  The  charge  of  the  prosecution  is,  that  errors  in  Holy 
Scripture  conflict  with  the  essential  doctrine  that  “  Holy  Scrip¬ 
ture  is  the  Word  of  God  written.”  The  prosecution  may  think 
that  there  is  conflict  here,  but  they  are  mistaken.  The  reason 
why  they  see  conflict  is  because  they  interpret  “Word  of  God 
written  ”  differently  from  what  I  do.  They  put  into  this  doc¬ 
trine  in  their  original  Specification,  “true  and  full  inspiration,” 
meaning  so  far  as  we  can  determine — (1)  Plenary  inspiration; 
(2)  Verbal  inspiration;  (3)  Inerrancy.  Let  me  remark  at  the 
outset  that  although  I  admit  the  phrase  “  true  and  full  inspira¬ 
tion,”  it  is  not  a  phrase  of  the  Confession  or  of  Holy  Scripture. 
The  only  phrase  of  the  Confession  used  by  them  in  this  state¬ 
ment  is  “the  Word  of  God  written.”  I  hold  to  the  “true  in¬ 
spiration  of  the  Word  of  God  written,”  but  I  also  hold  that  ^ 
there  are  errors  in  Holy  Scripture,  and  that  there  is  no  incon¬ 
sistency  between  these  statements.  The  inconsistency  is  in  the 
mind  of  the  prosecutors  because  they  already  include  in  the 
term  full  inspiration,  verbal  inspiration  and  inerrancy ;  whereas 
I  use  plenary,  or  full,  in  the  grammatical  and  historical  sense  as 
referring  to  the  contents  of  the  words.  When  we  say  that  a 


92 


THE  DEFENCE  OF  PROFESSOR  BRIGGS 


lamp  is  full  of  oil,  we  do  not  mean  that  the  lamp  is  oil,  but  that 
it  contains  oil  in  the  receptacle  which  it  incloses.  When  I  say 
the  Scriptures  are  full  of  divine  inspiration,  I  mean  that  the 
Scriptures  as  writings  are  filled  full  with  an  inspired  rule  of 
faith  and  practice,  which  rule  fills  and  pervades  Scripture  in  all 
its  parts.  I  have  the  authority  of  John  Wallis,  a  clerk  of  the 
W estminster  Assembly,  for  this  view,  when  he  says : 

“  The  Scriptures  in  themselves  are  a  Lanthorn  rather  than  a  Light ; 
they  shine,  indeed,  but  it  is  alieno  lumine  ;  it  is  not  their  own,  but  a 
borrowed  light.  It  is  God  which  is  the  true  light  that  shines  to  us  in  the 
Scriptures ;  and  they  have  no  other  light  in  them,  but  as  they  represent 
to  us  somewhat  of  God,  and  as  they  exhibit  and  hold  forth  God  to  us, 
who  is  the  true  light  that  ‘enlighteneth  every  man  that  comes  into  the 
world.  ’  It  is  a  light,  then,  as  it  represents  God  unto  us,  who  is  the  orig¬ 
inal  light.  It  transmits  some  rays  ;  some  beams  of  the  divine  nature  ; 
but  they  are  refracted,  or  else  we  should  not  be  able  to  behold  them. 
They  lose  much  of  their  original  lustre  by  passing  through  this  medium, 
and  appear  not  so  glorious  to  us  as  they  are  in  themselves.  They  repre¬ 
sent  God’s  simplicity  obliquated  and  refracted,  by  reason  of  many  inad¬ 
equate  conceptions ;  God  condescending  to  the  weakness  of  our  capacity 
to  speak  to  us  in  our  own  dialect”  (John  Wallis,  “Sermon,”  Lond.,  1791, 
pp.  127,  128). 

I  apprehend  that  Wallis  is  a  greater  authority  for  interpret¬ 
ing  the  Westminster  Confession  than  any  American  theologian 
or  than  the  last  General  Assembly  at  Portland.  It  is  evident, 
therefore,  that  there  is  no  logical  inconsistency  between  these 
statements  unless  you  put  into  the  phrase  “  plenary  or  full  ”  all 
that  you  wish  to  find  there  in  the  way  of  verbal  inspiration  and 
inerrancy.  If  you  do  this  I  challenge  your  proofs  from  Holy 
Scripture  and  Confession. 


The  Will  of  God  Committed  to  Writing 
(a)  The  Confession  represents  that — 

“  Therefore  it  pleased  the  Lord,  at  sundry  times,  and  in  divers  manners, 
to  reveal  himself,  and  to  declare  that  his  will  unto  his  church  ;  and 
afterwards,  for  the  better  preserving  and  propagating  of  the  truth,  and 
for  the  more  sure  establishment  and  comfort  of  the  church  against  the 
corruption  of  the  flesh,  and  the  malice  of  Satan  and  of  the  world,  to 
commit  the  same  wholly  unto  writing  ”  (I.  1) . 


THE  INERRANCY  OF  HOLY  SCRIPTURE 


93 


This  teaches  that  God  “committed  wholly  unto  writing” 
“that  knowledge  of  God  and  of  his  will  which  is  necessary 
unto  salvation.”  This  statement  I  sincerely  adopt.  But  note 
what  was  committed  “  wholly  unto  writing :  ”  “  the  knowledge 
of  God  and  of  his  will  which  is  necessary  unto  salvation  ” — 
nothing  more ;  not  the  knowledge  of  geography,  not  the  knowl¬ 
edge  of  chronology,  not  the  knowledge  of  correct  citations,  not 
exactness  in  names  of  persons  and  things,  unless  you  can  prove 
that  these  are  necessary  to  salvation.  This  statement  of  the 
Confession  amounts  to  nothing  more  than  “  rule  of  faith  and 
practice ;  ”  it  is  hardly  as  much,  because  there  are  some  matters 
of  faith  and  practice  which  may  not  be  necessary  to  salvation. 
This  statement  does  not  touch  upon  knowledge  not  necessary  to 
salvation.  If  there  are  errors  in  such  matters  as  are  not  neces¬ 
sary  to  salvation,  what  has  that  to  do  with  this  passage?  When 
it  is  said  that  God  committed  that  wholly  unto  writing,  does  it 
teach  that  God  Himself  committed  to  writing,  or  does  it  imply 
the  use  of  holy  penmen?  Manifestly  the  latter.  If  then  God 
used  holy  penmen  to  commit  this  knowledge  to  writing,  you 
cannot  conclude  that  these  penmen  did  not  commit  to  writing, 
together  with  this  knowledge  of  God  necessary  to  salvation, 
other  knowledge  which  was  not  necessary  to  salvation ;  and  if 
so,  you  cannot  conclude  that  there  were  no  errors  in  that  matter 
which  these  men  wrote,  unless  you  can  also  prove  that  God 
commissioned  them  to  commit  this  also  to  writing.  You  can¬ 
not  prove  any  such  thing  from  this  passage  of  the  Confession 
which  limits  itself  to  “knowledge  necessary  to  salvation.” 
Further,  “  commit  to  writing  ”  does  not  imply  any  more  than 
that  this  knowledge  of  God  necessary  to  salvation  is  wholly  in 
these  writings.  It  does  not  imply  that  the  words  which  contain 
this  knowledge  are  inspired,  or  that  they  may  not  be  connected 
with  human  and  fallible  material. 


•  “  The  Word  of  God  Written  ” 

(b)  The  phrase,  “  the  Word  of  God  written,”  in  the  first  clause 
of  Section  2d  of  Chapter  I.,  seems  to  have  great  importance 
in  the  minds  of  the  prosecution.  I  fail  to  see  what  use  they 
can  make  of  it  in  proof  of  the  inerrancy  of  Holy  Scripture. 


94 


THE  DEFENCE  OF  PROFESSOR  BRIGGS 


This  section  gives  a  list  of  the  canonical  books  of  Holy  Scrip¬ 
ture  and  prefaces  the  list  with  the  statement,  “Under  the  name 
of  Holy  Scripture,  or  the  Word  of  God  written,  are  now  con¬ 
tained  all  the  books  of  the  Old  and  New  Testaments,  which  are 
these,”  etc. 

This  is  a  comprehensive  statement  which  simply  amounts  to 
this:  that  Genesis,  Exodus,  and  so  forth,  are  books  of  Holy 
Scripture,  that  is,  “  the  Word  of  God  written.”  “  Word  of  God 
written  ”  is  only  an  explanation  of  the  term  “  Holy  Scripture.  ” 
It  may  be  that  the  prosecution  have  in  mind  some  hidden  sense 
of  this  passage  which  they  have  not  yet  brought  out  to  the  light 
of  day,  but,  with  the  best  study  that  I  can  give  it,  it  amounts 
to  nothing  more  than  that  Genesis  is  the  written  Word  of  God, 
Exodus  is  the  written  Word  of  God,  that  is,  is  Holy  Scripture, 
etc.,  etc.  I  certainly  hold  to  this.  Genesis,  Exodus,  and  the 
entire  list  of  writings  given  in  this  section  are  the  Word  of 
God,  constituent  parts  of  Holy  Scripture.  I  do  not  know  why 
the  prosecution  cite  this  phrase  unless  they  think  that  it  is  con¬ 
trary  to  my  statement  when  I  say :  “  The  Bible,  as  a  book,  is 
paper,  print,  and  binding — nothing  more.  It  is  entitled  to  rev¬ 
erent  handling  for  the  sake  of  its  holy  contents  because  it  con¬ 
tains  the  divine  word  of  redemption  for  man,  and  not  for  any 
other  reason  whatever  ”  (p.  30) .  This  extract  was  used  in  the 
original  Specification.  It  is  left  out  of  the  present  Charge.  But 
was  the  Bible,  as  written  by  the  sacred  penmen,  a  book  with 
paper,  print,  and  binding?  We  think  not.  All  these  are  quite 
modern.  What  printer  was  ever  inspired,  what  paper-maker 
ever  communicated  divine  authority  to  the  paper,  what  binder 
ever  imparted  salvation  through  his  tools  to  the  binding?  I 
gave  the  true  reason  for  reverent  handling  of  the  Bible.  My 
language  indeed  is  only  a  paraphrase  of  the  first  section  of  the 
Confession.  The  Confession  says :  “  It  pleased  God  to  commit 
the  knowledge  of  God  and  of  his  will  which  is  necessary  unto 
salvation  wholly  unto  writing.”  I  said:  “for  the  sake  pf  its 
holy  contents  because  it  contains  the  word  of  redemption  for 
man.”  I  do  not  see  how  my  language  could  be  any  nearer  to 
the  Confessional  language  unless  I  cited  the  Confession  word 
for  word. 


THE  INERRANCY  OF  HOLY  SCRIPTURE 


95 


Holy  Scripture  is  the  Word  of  God 

(c)  The  prosecution  cite  Section  4th  in  order  to  prove  that  the 
Confession  teaches  that  Holy  Scripture  is  “the  Word  of  God.’' 
There  can  be  no  doubt  of  this.  The  prosecution  seem  to  inter¬ 
pret  it  as  if  it  meant  that  Holy  Scripture  is  so  the  Word  of  God 
that  every  sentence  and  word  in  it  is  divine  and  infallible.  But 
the  Confession  certainly  does  not  say  this,  and  it  evidently  does 
not  mean  this. 

I  have  shown  that  we  cannot  take  the  statement  of  one  of  the 
three  doctrinal  standards  as  of  essential  importance  unless  it 
correspond  with  the  statements  of  the  other  documents,  and  that 
we  must  so  interpret  the  varying  phrases  of  the  three  standards 
as  to  get  a  doctrine  which  will  be  consistent  with  the  phrasing 
of  them  all.  The  Larger  Catechism  teaches  that  “  the  Holy 
Scriptures  of  the  Old  and  Hew  Testaments  are  the  Word  of 
God,  the  only  rule  of  faith  and  obedience.”  But  the  Shorter 
Catechism,  the  last  of  the  three  documents  to  be  composed,  and 
which  presupposes  the  other  two,  teaches  that  “the  Word  of 
God  which  is  contained  in  the  Scriptures  of  the  Old  and  Hew 
Testaments  is  the  only  rule  to  direct  us  how  we  may  glorify 
and  enjoy  him.”  It  is  evident,  therefore,  that  the  Westminster 
doctrine  of  Holy  Scripture  must  be  so  constructed  as  to  enable 
us  to  say,  “the  Bible  contains  the  Word  of  God,”  as  well  as 
to  say,  “is  the  Word.”  There  are  two  extremes  of  statement 
which  are  both  inconsistent  with  the  Westminster  statement. 
If,  on  the  one  hand,  you  take  the  statement  of  the  Shorter 
Catechism  and  say,  Holy  Scripture  contains  the  Word  of  God 
in  its  chief  doctrines,  but  there  are  some  doctrines  of  faith  and 
rules  of  life  which  are  not  the  Word  of  God ;  then  you  cannot 
subscribe  to  the  statement,  “is  the  Word  of  God.”  So,  on  the 
other  hand,  if  you  take  the  statement  of  the  Larger  Catechism 
in  such  a  sense  as  to  say,  Holy  Scripture  is  the  Word  of  God 
in  all  its  parts,  thoughts  and  words,  sentences  and  linguistic 
expression, then  you  cannot  subscribe  to  the  statement,  “  contains 
the  Word  of  God.”  The  true  Westminster  doctrine  is  the  same 
that  we  have  already  seen,  that  the  Bible  contains  the  Word  of 
God  in  that  it  contains  the  rule  of  faith  and  practice,  and  it  is 
the  Word  of  God  because  this  rule  of  faith  and  practice  so  fills 


9G 


THE  DEFENCE  OF  PROFESSOR  BRIGGS 


and  pervades  and  controls  Holy  Scripture  as  to  make  it  to  all 
intents  and  purposes  the  Word  of  God.  As  a  Westminster 
divine  well  says : 

“For  tlie  Scripture  stands  not  in  cortice  verborum,  but  in  medulla 
sensus,  it’s  the  same  wine  in  this  vessel  which  was  drawn  out  of  that.” 

I  can  sincerely  subscribe  to  both  statements,  “is  the  Word  of 
God,”  and  “contains  the  Word  of  God,”  but  I  challenge  the 
subscription  to  the  words  “contains  the  Word  of  God”  on  the 
part  of  those  who  insist  that  “is  the  Word  of  God”  means 
verbal  inspiration  and  inerrancy  in  every  particular.  I  chal¬ 
lenge  the  subscription  to  the  clause  “contains  the  Word  of 
God”  by  the  prosecution,  when  they  say : 

“God  is  the  arranger  of  its  clauses,  the  chooser  of  its  terms,  and  the 
speller  of  its  words  so  that  the  text  in  its  letters,  words,  or  clauses  is  just 
as  divine  as  the  thought  ”  (Stenographer’s  Report,  p.  558) . 

The  blind  zeal  with  which  some  have  recently  insisted  upon  “  is 
the  Word  of  God”  reminds  us  of  Luther’s  uncharitable  conduct 
at  the  conference  at  Marburg.  To  use  the  words  of  Hr.  Schaff : 

“  Luther  first  rose,  and  declared  emphatically  that  he  would  not  change 
his  opinion  on  the  real  presence  in  the  least,  but  stand  fast  on  it  to  the 
end  of  life,  fie  called  upon  the  Swiss  to  prove  the  absence  of  Christ, 
but  protested  at  the  outset  against  arguments  derived  from  reason  and 
geometry.  To  give  pictorial  emphasis  to  his  declaration,  he  wrote  with 
a  piece  of  chalk  on  the  table  in  large  characters  the  words  of  institution, 
with  which  he  was  determined  to  stand  or  fall :  Hoc  est  corpus  Meum  ” 
(“History  of  the  Christian  Church,”  VI.,  p.  640). 

We  well  know  the  evil  consequences  of  a  divided  and  dis¬ 
tracted  Protestantism  which  resulted  from  this  intolerant  and 
opinionated  conduct  of  the  great  reformer.  Shall  we  allow 
men  who  are  pigmies  alongside  of  Luther  to  plunge  our  Pres¬ 
byterian  Church  into  distraction  and  division  by  the  entering 
edge  of  the  copula  “  is”  ?  In  the  usage  of  language,  this  little 
word  “  is”  is  capable  of  a  variety  of  interpretations.  “  This  is 
my  body”  in  the  words  of  Jesus  is  of  infinitely  more  consequence 
than  “  Holy  Scripture  is  the  Word  of  God”  in  our  Confession  of 
Faith.  Give  heed  to  the  warning  of  history. 


THE  INERRANCY  OF  HOLY  SCRIPTURE 


9? 


Immediately  Inspired 

( d )  The  prosecution  cite  Section  8th  in  order  to  prove  the  infal¬ 
libility  of  the  original  text  of  Scripture.  The  Confession  teaches 
that — 

“  The  Old  Testament  in  Hebrew  and  the  New  Testament  in  Greek,  being 
immediately  inspired  by  God,  and  by  his  singular  care  and  providence 
kept  pure  in  all  ages,  are  therefore  autlientical ;  so  as  in  all  controversies 
of  religion,  the  church  is  finally  to  appeal  unto  them”  (I.  8) . 

There  are  three  affirmations  here :  (1)  that  the  original  text 
was  immediately  inspired  by  God ;  (2)  that  they  have  been  kept 
pure  in  all  ages  and  are  therefore  authentical;  (3)  they  are  the 
final  appeal  in  all  controversies  of  religion.  The  third  state¬ 
ment  gives  the  scope  of  the  others.  The  Scriptures  are  the  final 
appeal  in  religious  controversies ;  matters  of  faith  and  practice, 
not  for  questions  of  science.  Those  who  have  resorted  to  the 
Bible  to  prove  that  the  sun  moved  round  the  earth,  that  the  earth 
could  not  be  circumnavigated,  that  the  universe  was  created  in 
six  days  of  twenty-four  hours,  and  the  like,  have  surely  gone 
beyond  the  range  of  the  W estminster  Confession,  which  specifies 
controversies  of  religion.  Those  zealous  defenders  of  the  infalli¬ 
bility  of  the  Scriptures  in  other  like  matters  of  detail  outside  of 
the  range  of  religious  controversies,  apart  from  matters  of  faith 
and  practice,  will  ere  long  be  convicted  of  similar  error.  (See 
further  the  evidence  presented  in  “  The  Bible,  the  Church,  and 
the  Reason,”  pp.  95  seq.) 

(1)  The  prosecution  emphasizes  the  phrase  “being  imme¬ 
diately  inspired  by  God,”  which  indeed  they  include  in  the 
Charge  itself  in  the  clause  “immediately  inspired.”  The  Con¬ 
fession  states  that  “the  Old  Testament  in  Hebrew  and  the 
New  Testament  in  Greek,  being  immediately  inspired  by  God.” 

It  is  evident  that  the  prosecution  rest  their  case  upon  the 
adverb  “immediately.”  What  does  it  mean  in  this  passage? 
“  Immediately”  does  not  refer  to  the  time  when  the  Holy  Scrip¬ 
tures  were  composed,  and  therefore  it  has  nothing  whatever  to 
do  with  the  original  autographs.  The  Confession  does  not  say, 
“having  been  immediately  inspired  by  God,”  referring  to  their 
origin  in  the  past,  but  “being  immediately  inspired  by  God,” 
7 


98 


THE  DEFENCE  OF  PROFESSOR  BRIGGS 


alluding  to  their  present  condition.  The  doctrine  is  that  the 
Hebrew  and  Greek  copies,  as  we  now  have  them  in  our  hands, 
are  immediately  inspired  by  God;  they  have  within  them  the 
divine  grace  of  inspiration,  and  it  is  there  immediately  from 
God  as  compared  with  the  translations  from  the  Greek  and 
Hebrew  originals,  where  the  inspiration  is  mediately  from  God, 
namely,  through  the  medium  of  these  originals.  That  this  is 
the  meaning  of  the  Confession  is  clear  from  the  controversial 
literature  of  the  times  when  the  Confession  was  composed. 
Let  me  quote  from  W illiam  Lyford,  one  of  the  most  honored 
divines  among  the  English  Presbyterians  and  one  whose  name 
and  authority  were  of  the  first  to  the  authors  of  our  Standards : 

“  Thus  that  Jesuite,  with  whom  Doctor  White  has  to  doe,  laves  this  for 
his  first  conclusion  (namely)  that  the  scriptures  alone,  especially  as 
translated  into  the  English  Tongue,  cannot  he  the  ride  of  Faith  :  He  gives 
two  Reasons  for  his  Assertion ;  The  first  is,  because  these  Translations 
are  not  infallible,  as  the  Rule  of  Faith  must  be ;  for  neither  were  the 
Scriptures  immediately  written  by  the  Holy  Ghost  in  our  language, 
neither  were  the  Translators  assisted  by  the  Spirit  infallible,  as  appears 
by  the  often  change,  and  correcting  of  the  Translations,  which  shews 
that  some  of  them  were  defective. — How  can  an  unlearned  man  be  sure, 
that  this  Translation,  which  now  I  have,  or  you  have,  does  not  erre,  un¬ 
less  you  admit  the  Authority  of  the  Church,  to  assure  us,  that  such  and 
such  a  Translation  doth  not  erre? 

“  For  answer  hereunto,  I  lay  down  these  two  Conclusions :  First,  that 
Divine  Truth  in  English,  is  as  truly  the  Word  of  God,  as  the  same  Scrip¬ 
tures  delivered  in  the  Originall  Hebrew  or  Greek;  yet  with  this  differ¬ 
ence,  that  the  same  is  perfectly,  immediately,  and  most  absolutely  in  the 
Originall  Hebrew  and  Greek,  in  other  Translations,  as  the  vessels  wherein 
it  is  presented  to  us,  and  as  far  forth  as  they  agree  with  the  Originalls  : 
And  every  Translation  agreeing  with  the  Originalls  in  the  matter,  is  the 
same  Canonicall  Scripture  that  Flebrew  or  Greek  is,  even  as  it  is  the 
same  Water,  which  is  in  the  Fountain,  and  in  the  Stream  ;  We  say  this 
is  the  Water  of  such  or  such  a  Well,  or  Spring,  because  it  came  from 
thence ;  so  it  is  in  this  business,  when  the  Apostles  spake  the  wonderfull 
works  of  God  in  the  language  of  all  Nations  (that  were  at  Jerusalem ) 
wherein  they  were  born ;  the  Doctrine  was  the  same  to  all,  of  the  same 
Truth  and  Divine  Authority  in  the  severall  Languages  :  And  this  Doctrine 
is  the  Rule  we  seek  for,  and  the  foundation  upon  which  our  Religion  is 
grounded,  and  it  is  all  one  thing,  whether  it  be  brought  to  my  under¬ 
standing  in  Welch,  or  English,  or  Greek,  or  Latine  :  all  Language,  or 
Writing,  is  but  the  Vessell,  the  Symbole,  or  Declaration  of  the  Rule,  not 
the  Rule  itself :  It  is  a  certain  form  or  means  by  which  the  Divine  Truth 
•cometh  unto  us,  as  things  are  contained  in  their  words,  and  because  the 


THE  INERRANCY  OF  HOLY  SCRIPTURE 


90 


Doctrine  and  matter  of  the  Text  is  not  made  known  nnto  me  but  by¬ 
words,  and  a  language  which  I  understand ;  therefore  I  say,  the  Scrip¬ 
ture  in  English  is  the  rule  and  ground  of  my  faith,  whereupon  I  relying, 
have  not  a  humane,  but  a  divine  Authority  for  my  Faith.  Even  as  an 
unbeliever  coming  to  our  Sermons,  is  convinced  of  all,  and  judged  of  all, 
and  he  will  acknowledge  the  Divine  Truth  of  God,  although  by  a  humane 
voice  in  preaching,  it  be  conveyed  unto  him,  so  we  enjoy  the  infallible 
Doctrine  of  the  Scripture,  although  by  a  mans  Translation  it  be  mani¬ 
fested  to  me”  (“Plain  Mans  Senses” — Lyford,  pp.  48,  49). 

It  is  evident,  therefore,  that  the  adverb  “  immediately”  gives 
the  prosecution  no  support  for  their  doctrine  that  the  original 
autographs  were  without  error.  It  has  nothing  whatever  to 
do  with  such  autographs. 

(2)  There  is  an  important  phrase  in  this  section  which  the 
prosecution  do  not  emphasize  and  which  they  do  not  insert  in 
the  Charge.  This  phrase  gives  irresistible  witness  against 
them.  It  is  the  following:  “By  his  singular  care  and  provi¬ 
dence,  kept  pure  in  all  ages.”  The  statement  is  that  the  Greek 
New  Testament  and  the  Hebrew  Old  Testament  have  been  kept 
pure  in  all  ages  by  the  singular  care  and  providence  of  God, 
and  are  authentical.  They  are  authentic  for  their  purpose 
as  the  only  infallible  rule  of  faith  and  practice,  to  determine 
controversies  of  religion.  They  have  been  kept  pure  by  divine 
providence  in  all  ages  for  this  purpose.  Those  who  use  this 
passage  in  order  to  prove  the  inerrancy  of  Scripture  in  every 
particular  make  several  inferences  which  are  not  justified. 
They  have  no  right  to  infer  that  the  adjective  “  pure”  means 
inerrant  in  every  particular.  Pure,  yes,  for  its  purpose  of 
grace  and  salvation.  Pure,  yes,  to  determine  infallibly  con¬ 
troversies  of  religion.  Pure,  yes,  to  give  the  infallible  rule  of 
faith  and  practice  and  to  determine  every  question  of  religion, 
doctrine,  and  morals.  Pure,  yes,  so  that  these  great  purposes 
of  the  grace  of  God  shall  in  no  wise  be  contaminated,  or  colored,  v/ 
or  warped,  or  changed  in  the  slightest  particular;  but  not  pure 
in  the  sense  that  every  sentence,  word,  and  letter  of  our  present 
Greek  and  Plebrew  text  is  absolutely  errorless  and  inerrant. 
The  Westminster  divines  knew  as  well  as  we  do  that  the  accents 
and  vowel-points  of  the  Hebrew  text  then  in  their  possession 
did  not  come  down  from  the  original  autographs  pure  and  un¬ 
changed.  The}7  were  not  in  the  original  autographs  at  all. 


100 


THE  DEFENCE  OF  PROFESSOR  BRIGGS 


Levita,  Luther,  Calvin,  Zwingli,  Beza,  and  the  great  array 
of  Biblical  critics  in  the  16th  and  17th  centuries  had  set¬ 
tled  that.  They  knew,  as  well  as  we  know,  that  there  were 
variations  of  reading  and  uncertainties  and  errors  in  the  Greek 
and  Hebrew  texts  in  their  hands.  The  great  Polyglots  had 
settled  that.  They  knew  that  there  were  errors  of  citation  and 
of  chronology  and  of  geographical  statement  in  the  text  of 
Scripture.  Luther  and  Calvin,  Walton  and  Lightfoot,  Baxter 
and  Rutherford,  and  a  great  company  of  Biblical  scholars 
recognized  them  and  found  no  difficulty  with  them. 

The  language  of  the  Confession  does  not  of  itself  teach  that 
the  Holy  Scriptures  are  altogether  without  error;  and  it  is 
extremely  improbable,  from  the  historic  situation  of  the  West¬ 
minster  divines  in  the  development  of  Biblical  scholarship,  that 
they  ever  designed  to  make  any  such  statement.  But  even  if 
they  had  intended  to  make  such  a  statement,  and  did  actually 
make  it,  implicitly,  if  not  explicitly,  in  the  clause,  “  kept  pure 
in  all  ages,”  it  is  the  unanimous  testimony  of  modern  Biblical 
scholarship  that  there  are  errors  in  the  Hebrew  and  Greek  texts 
now  in  our  hands,  errors  that  meet  us  in  textual  criticism,  in 
literary  criticism,  and  in  historical  criticism,  that  no  one  has 
been  able  to  deny  or  to  explain  away.  Modern  Biblical  scholar¬ 
ship  has  forced  the  advocates  of  inerrancy  to  fall  back  from  the 
texts  in  our  hands  and  grant  that  there  are  errors  in  them,  in 
order  to  rally  about  the  modern  dogma  of  the  inerrancy  of  the 
original  autographs. 

The  attentive  reader  of  the  Westminster  Confession  will  note 
that  it  states  with  regard  to  the  original  texts  that  (1)  “The 
Old  Testament  in  Hebrew  and  the  New  Testament  in  Greek 
are  immediately  inspired  by  God,”  and  (2)  that  they,  “by  his 
singular  care  and  providence,  have  been  kept  pure  in  all  ages.” 
The  first  statement,  that  the  original  texts  are  immediately  in¬ 
spired  by  God,  is  not  in  debate  in  the  Presbyterian  Church. 
All  parties  agree  to  that.  The  second  statement  affirms  noth¬ 
ing  more  as  regards  the  original  autographs  than  it  affirms  of 
the  Hebrew  and  Greek  texts  in  our  hands.  “  Kept  pure”  means 
that  the  text  we  have  is  as  pure  as  the  original  text  was,  no 
more,  no  less.  Those  modern  scholastics  who  have  generated 
this  dogma  of  the  inerrancy  of  the  original  autographs  seem 


THE  INERRANCY  OF  HOLY  SCRIPTURE 


101 


altogether  unconscious  of  the  fact  that  they  have  transgressed 
the  Confessional  statement,  when  they  claim  that  the  original 
autographs  were  so  pure  as  to  be  inerrant,  and  then  admit  that 
they  have  not  been  kept  sufficiently  pure  in  all  ages  as  to  be  in¬ 
errant  at  the  present  time.  The  Confessional  doctrine  is  “  kept 
pure  in  all  ages.”  This  we  firmly  believe.  The  texts  are  as 
pure  to-day  to  determine  religious  controversies  as  they  ever 
were.  They  are  as  pure,  as  the  only  infallible  rule  of  faith  and 
practice,  as  when  they  first  issued  by  immediate  inspiration 
from  the  hands  and  the  brains  of  those  who  wrote  them  and 
uttered  them.  Our  opponents  deny  the  Confessional  statement 
when  they  assert  that  the  original  autographs  were  purer  than 
the  Biblical  texts  are  now.  They  deny  the  Confession  which 
states  that  they  have  been  “  kept  pure  in  all  ages.  ”  They  make 
the  synagogue  and  the  Church  the  scapegoats,  and  throw  upon 
them  the  blame  for  the  errors  in  the  present  texts  of  Scripture. 
Doubtless  many  errors  have  arisen  in  the  course  of  transmission 
through  the  mistakes  of  copyists.  But  these  may,  for  the  most 
part,  be  traced  out  and  explained  according  to  the  principles  of 
textual  criticism.  These  errors  are  chiefly  errors  of  inadvert¬ 
ence,  although  some  have  arisen  from  dogmatic  efforts  to  har¬ 
monize  variant  passages  and  to  correct  supposed  errors  in  the 
older  texts.  It  discredits  the  scientific  work  of  textual  criticism 
to  make  conjectures  as  to  an  original  text  different  from  the 
best  one  we  can  find  after  we  have  exhausted  the  resources  of 
criticism.  Conjectures  in  the  interests  of  scepticism  are  quite 
as  easy  as  conjectures  in  the  interest  of  orthodoxy.  Those  who 
by  pure  conjecture  invent  an  inerrant  original  autograph,  that 
has  never  been  in  the  possession  of  the  synagogue  or  the  Church 
so  far  as  we  can  trace  the  historic  records,  deny  that  God  has 
kept  the  Holy  Scripture  pure  in  that  period  of  their  history  con¬ 
cerning  which  we  are  left  in  darkness.  It  is  quite  easy  to 
imagine  anything  in  the  dark. 

“  The  Confession  does  not  present  any  obstacle  whatever  to 
Biblical  scholarship  at  this  point.  The  Confession  says :  4  kept 
pure  in  all  ages.’  This  is  in  accord  with  Biblical  scholarship. 
It  is  well  known  to  those  who  have  pursued  the  study  of  Bibli¬ 
cal  criticism  that  textual  criticism,  while  it  advances  steadily 
toward  the  original  autographs,  finds  the  number  of  errors 


102 


THE  DEFENCE  OF  PROFESSOR  BRIGGS 


increasing  as  well  as  diminishing.  As  it  works  its  arduous 
way  backward  some  errors  are  removed,  but  others  of  equal 
difficulty  are  disclosed.  The  Higher  Criticism  in  its  quest  after 
the  exact  literary  forms  of  the  original  Scriptures  also  finds  an 
increasing  number  of  errors.  Historical  criticism  in  its  com¬ 
parison  of  Bible  with  monument  and  the  parallel  line  of  history 
clears  up  many  difficulties,  but  also  adds  to  the  number  of  errors 
of  names,  dates,  geography,  and  incident.  Biblical  scholarship 
could  have  no  objection  to  the  statement  of  the  Westminster 
Confession  “  kept  pure  in  all  ages,  ”  for  criticism  shows  that  the 
present  text  is  as  pure  and  free  from  errors  of  truth  and  fact  as 
any  earlier  text  accessible  to  us.  Indeed,  the  study  of  the  errors 
of  Holy  Scripture  is  one  of  the  strongest  evidences  of  the  credi¬ 
bility  of  the  Scriptures.  It  shows  clearly  that  the  text  has  in 
all  ages  been  kept  pure  for  its  purposes  of  grace  and  salvation. 

*  All  the  errors  that  have  yet  been  discovered  are  but  as  moles 
on  a  beautiful  face,  or  those  discolorations  of  a  cathedral  which 
come  in  part  from  the  wear  and  tear  of  ages  and  in  part  from 
minor  defects  in  the  marbles  themselves,  but  which  enhance  the 
beauty  and  majesty  of  the  structure,  witnessing  to  its  integ¬ 
rity,  strength,  and  grandeur.”  (See  “  The  Bible,  the  Church, 
and  the  Reason, ”  pp.  99  seq.) 

(3)  Another  neglected  clause  of  the  Confession  reads  as  follows : 

“Therefore  they  are  to  be  translated  into  the  vulgar  language  of  every 
nation  unto  which  they  come,  that  the  word  of  God  dwelling  plentifully 
in  all,  they  may  worship  him  in  an  acceptable  manner,  and,  through 
patience  and  comfort  of  the  Scriptures,  may  have  hope  ”  (I.  8) . 

This  passage  was  omitted  altogether  from  the  Specification  in 
the  original  Charge.  The  prosecution  doubtless  saw  their  mis¬ 
take  in  this  omission  and  had  a  presentiment  that  it  would  be 
used  against  them. 

This  passage  teaches  the  efficacy  of  translations  of  the  Scrip¬ 
tures  and  maintains  that  the  Word  of  God  comes  through 
translations  as  well  as  through  originals.  The  authority  of 
Holy  Scripture  is  not  confined  to  the  original  autographs  or  to 
the  original  languages  of  Holy  Scripture,  but  is  conveyed  by 
the  holy  doctrine  and  facts  of  Scripture  through  every  language 
under  heaven.  Holy  Scripture  is  the  power  of  God  unto  salva- 


THE  INERRANCY  OF  HOLY  SCRIPTURE 


103 


lion  in  whatever  form  it  assumes  or  through  whatever  message 
it  comes  to  penitent  men  of  every  nation,  kindred,  or  tongue. 
There  can  be  no  true  doctrine  of  the  inspiration  of  Holy  Scrip¬ 
ture,  or  of  the  authority  of  Holy  Scripture,  or  of  the  infallibility 
of  Holy  Scripture,  which  deifies  original  autographs,  exaggerates 
Hebrew,  Greek,  or  Aramaic  words  and  sentences,  and  depre¬ 
ciates  the  translations  which  alone  are  accessible  to  the  people  of 
God.  When  it  is  said  that  “  God  is  careful  of  his  yodh.  He  does 
not  dot  his  i  for  nothing,  nor  cross  his  t  merely  for  decoration” 
(Stenographical  Report,  pp.  566,  567),  the  prosecution  use  lan¬ 
guage  which  is  so  anthropomorphic  as  to  be  irreverent.  When 
it  is  further  said  that  the  Bible  is  “  the  human  medium  which 
tabernacles  Jesus  Christ,  the  Word  made  Bible  must  be  as  per- ' 
feet,  as  spotless,  as  infallible”  (Stenographical  Report,  p.  515), 
the  prosecution  teach  a  Cliristology  which  is  contrary  to  the  faith 
of  the  Church  of  God.  The  Bible  is  not  Jesus  Christ  in  the 
form  of  a  book.  The  Bible  is  not  God  manifest  in  the  Scrip¬ 
tures  in  a  sense  parallel  to  God  manifest  in  the  flesh  of  Jesus 
Christ.  The  authority  of  the  Bible  and  its  infallibility  is  of  a 
very  different  kind  from  the  authority  of  the  Incarnate  Son 
of  God.  Its  authority  is  in  the  divine  revelation  of  the  rule  of 
faith  and  life  for  the  redemption  of  men.  The  Bible  is  authori¬ 
tative  to  the  people  of  God,  not  merely  to  those  who  can  read 
it  in  Hebrew  and  Greek.  The  Bible  is  infallible  to  all  the 
ministry,  not  merely  to  those  who  can  spell  out  by  the  help  of 
a  dictionary  its  Greek  and  Hebrew  words.  The  Bible  is  suffi¬ 
cient  for  the  whole  Church,  not  merely  for  a  few  textual  critics. 
It  is  important  that  there  should  be  the  best  textual  criticism 
and  that  the  ministry  should  in  considerable  numbers  be  He¬ 
brew  and  Greek  scholars.  But  it  is  contrary  to  the  principles 
of  Protestantism  and  especially  of  Puritanism  that  any  doctrine 
of  the  Bible  should  be  taught  that  makes  it  necessary  for  us  to 
resort  to  the  original  texts  and  the  original  autographs  in  order 
to  get  at  the  fountain  of  inspiration  and  authority.  It  is  a 
ludicrous  feature  of  the  present  situation  that  Biblical  scholars 
are  defending  the  translations  of  which  they  have  no  need, 
and  experts  in  textual  criticism  are  acknowledging  that  they 
find  no  inerrant  manuscripts,  the  Higher  Critics  are  searching 
the  Hebrew  and  Greek  Scriptures  through  and  through  to  learn 


104 


THE  DEFENCE  OF  PROFESSOR  BRIGGS 


the  exact  truth  and  facts  about  the  origin  and  character  of  the 
Bible ;  while  men  who  can  hardly  spell  out  their  Hebrew  and 
Greek  Bibles,  who  are  as  innocent  of  textual  criticism  as  a 
child  unborn,  and  who  show  by  their  speech  and  writing  that 
they  know  not  the  meaning  of  the  words  Higher  Criticism — 
that  such  men  are  prating  about  the  infallibility  of  original 
autographs  and  the  inviolability  of  traditional  theories.  We 
may  safely  say  that  divine  authority  is  not  stereotyped  in 
original  autographs  so  hidden  from  the  eyes  of  men  that  they 
can  less  easily  be  discovered  than  the  north  pole  or  the  Garden 
of  Eden .  The  fountain  of  authority  is  in  the  great  heart  of  the 
gospel,  the  message  of  redemption  which  the  Bible  tells  in  every 
s  language  into  which  it  may  be  translated,  and  which  the  Holy 
Spirit  ever  accompanies  with  His  quickening  presence. 

A  study  of  the  Confession  makes  it  clear  that  it  knows  noth¬ 
ing  of  the  modern  doctrine  of  the  inerrancy  of  the  original  auto¬ 
graphs  of  Holy  Scripture.  When  the  General  Assembly  as¬ 
sumed  to  say  by  a  majority  vote  that  “  Our  Church  holds  that 
the  inspired  W ord  as  it  came  from  God  is  without  error,  ”  they 
said  what  is  not  true  in  fact  at  the  present  time  unless  their 
own  majority  vote  determines  what  our  Church  holds;  and  they 
said  what  has  never  been  true  in  fact  in  the  history  of  the 
Presbyterian  Church,  if  they  meant,  what  circumstances  seem 
to  indicate  that  they  meant,  to  affirm  that  the  original  auto¬ 
graphs  were  without  error. 

The  Witness  of  Holy  Scripture  as  to  Errors 

All  the  texts  cited  by  the  prosecution  against  the  passages 
from  my  Inaugural  are  irrelevant.  If  they  had  affirmed  in 
their  Charge  that  it  is  an  essential  and  necessary  article  of  the 
Confession  and  of  Holy  Scripture  that  the  original  autographs 
of  Holy  Scripture  are  inerrant  and  had  used  these  passages  as 
proofs,  it  would  have  been  easy  to  show  that  not  one  of  them 
gives  the  slightest  support  to  such  a  theory.  They  show  that 
they  have  no  confidence  in  the  proof  texts  of  their  own  selec¬ 
tion.  In  the  specification  of  the  original  Charge  of  which  the 
present  Charge  is  an  amplification,  the  prosecution  cite  twenty- 
seven  texts  of  Scripture  against  me.  They  have  thrown  out  all 


THE  INERRANCY  OF  HOLY  SCRIPTURE 


105 


but  three  of  them  from  the  present  Charge  and  have  added  four 
new  ones.  But  the  new  are  no  better  than  the  old.  Another 
year’s  reflection  would  probably  suffice  to  have  all  of  them  thrown 
out.  Under  these  circumstances  it  seems  not  worth  my  while 
to  pay  any  attention  to  them.  I  hold  to  all  that  these  texts 
teach  when  interpreted  by  sound  principles  of  exegesis.  But  I 
am  sure  that  no  Biblical  scholar  who  is  entitled  to  the  slightest 
consideration  or  respect  would  risk  his  reputation  by  citing  any 
of  the  texts  for  any  such  purpose  as  the  prosecution  have  in 
mind. 

I  shall  adhere  to  the  policy  which  I  have  thus  far  followed 
with  regard  to  errors  in  Holy  Scripture.  I  have  refused  to  accept  * 
the  dogma  that  the  original  autographs  were  inerrant.  I  have 
maintained  that  there  are  errors  in  the  texts  which  we  have 
and  in  the  best  texts  we  can  get  by  the  science  of  textual  criti¬ 
cism,  and  that  it  is  improbable  that  the  original  texts,  if  we 
could  discover  them,  would  be  much  different  from  those  we 
have  in  that  regard.  But  I  have  refused  to  affirm  that  there  ^ 
were  errors  in  the  original  autographs ;  because  it  is  unscien¬ 
tific  and  it  is  unscliolarly  and  it  is  against  the  truth-loving 
spirit  of  Christianity  to  make  affirmations  of  dogma  where  we 
have  no  certain  evidence.  I  have  always  refrained  as  far  as 
possible  from  pointing  to  errors  in  the  present  text  of  Scripture. 
But  every  Biblical  scholar  admits  them.  There  are  a  few  pro¬ 
fessors  in  the  Biblical  department  in  American  theological 
seminaries  who  hold  to  this  modern  dogma  of  inerrancy,  and 
in  the  interests  of  this  dogma  try  to  explain  away  the  errors  of 
Holy  Scripture,  but  even  these  Procrusteans  are  obliged  to 
admit  that  they  must  resort,  for  some  of  the  most  stubborn  of 
them,  to  conjectures  that  these  were  bastards  to  the  original 
text. 

I  shall  call  your  attention  to  some  errors  in  Holy  Scripture 
which  have  been  recognized  by  the  great  divines  of  the  Church 
and  which  are  acknowledged  by  the  best  Biblical  scholarship  of 
our  age,  in  order  that  you  may  see  how  unsafe  it  is  to  risk  the 
divine  authority  of  Holy  Scripture  on  the  soundness  of  such  an 
unhistoric  and  unstable  modern  dogma  as  inerrancy.  I  refer 
you  again  to  the  long  list  of  citations  in  my  “  Bible,  Church,  and 
Reason,”  proving  that  errors  in  Holy  Scripture  were  recognized 


106 


1HE  DEFENCE  OF  PROFESSOR  BRIGGS 


by  Origen,  Jerome,  Augustine,  Lutlier,  Calvin,  Baxter,  Ruther¬ 
ford,  V an  Oosterzee,  among  the  older  divines ;  and  among  those 
now  living,  by  Marcus  Dods,  Sanday,  Bruce,  Beet,  Charteris, 
Plummer,  Gore,  Cave,  Iverach,  Thayer,  Huntington,  Apple, 
Fisher,  Vincent,  and  Fairchild.  Citations  from  ten  times  as 
many  might  easily  be  produced.  In  the  presence  of  such 
authorities,  even  members  of  the  late  General  Assembly  might 
well  feel  a  sense  of  humiliation  and  shame  for  their  deliverance, 
which  advises  all  who  agree  with  these  divines  to  retire  from 
the  Church.  Such  divines  bear  the  Church  with  them  wherever 
they  go.  A  Church  from  which  such  divines  would  retire 
would  go  a  long  distance  in  the  direction  indicated  by  the  Con¬ 
fession  when  it  represents  that  some  churches  “  have  so  degen¬ 
erated  as  to  become  no  churches  of  Christ,  but  synagogues  of 
Satan.” 

(а)  Calvin  says  with  reference  to  Matthew  xxvii.  9  : 

“How  the  name  of  Jeremiah  crept  in,  I  confess  I  know  not  nor  am  I 
seriously  troubled  about  it.  That  the  name  of  Jeremiah  has  been  put 
for  Zechariah  by  an  error,  the  fact  itself  shows,  because  there  is  no  such 
statement  in  Jeremiah.” 

St.  Augustine  and  St.  Jerome  had  recognized  this  error  cen¬ 
turies  before.  Professor  Sanday,  the  most  eminent  scholar  in 
the  New  Testament  in  Great  Britain,  now  living,  regards  this 
as  an  erroneous  citation.  New  Testament  scholars  who  differ 
from  them  are  hard  to  find.  Possibly  these  may  all  be  mistaken 
in  their  opinion,  and  American  dogmaticians  may  succeed  in 
convincing  you  that  this  is  no  error,  or  at  least  that  it  was  not 
an  error  in  the  original  text.  But  what  will  you  do  with  these 
scholars  and  all  whom  you  cannot  convince?  Are  you  prepared 
to  say  that  they  must  retire  from  the  Presbyterian  Church? 

(б)  Calvin  recognizes  a  mistake  in  Hebrews  xi.  21.  He  says: 

“  No  doubt  Moses  spoke  of  the  head  of  his  couch,  when  he  said  ^ 

but  the  Greek  translators  rendered  the  words,  ‘on  the  top  of  his  staff,’  as 
though  the  last  word  was  written  The  Apostle  hesitated  not  to  ap¬ 

ply  to  his  purpose  what  was  commonly  received  :  he  was  indeed  writing 
to  the  Jews ;  but  they  who  were  dispersed  in  various  countries  had 
changed  their  own  language  for  the  Greek.  And  we  know  that  the 
Apostles  were  not  so  scrupulous  in  this  respect,  as  not  to  accommodate 
themselves  to  the  unlearned,  who  had  as  yet  need  of  milk  ”  (Calvin’s 
Commentary  on  Hebrews,  xi.  21). 


THE  INERRANCY  OF  HOLY  SCRIPTURE 


107 


You  may  see  the  difference  in  our  English  Bible: 

“  And  he  said,  Swear  unto  me  :  and  he  sware  unto  him.  And  Israel 
bowed  himself  upon  the  bed’s  head”  (Gen.  xlvii.  31). 

“By  faith  Jacob,  when  he  was  a  dying,  blessed  each  of  the  sons  of 
Joseph ;  and  worshipped,  leaning  upon  the  top  of  his  staff  ”  (Hebrews 
xi.  21). 


The  LXX.  version  mistakes  the  points  of  the  Hebrew  word 
and  renders  incorrectly.  This  error  appears  in  the  epistle  to 
the  Hebrews.  There  is  no  doubt  that  it  is  an  error.  It  is  hard 
to  see  how  you  can  remove  this  error  from  the  original  text  of 
the  Xew  Testament,  because  the  LXX.  version  is  back  of  it. 
But  what  matters  such  an  error  as  this?  What  difference  does 
it  make  to  our  faith  and  practice  whether  Jacob  leaned  on  his 
staff  or  his  bed’s  head?  Why  should  you  demand  that  the 
Holy  Spirit  must  have  so  overruled  the  mind  of  the  writer  of 
the  epistle  to  the  Hebrews  that  he  would  correct  his  citation 
from  the  LXX.  so  as  to  correspond  with  the  correct  Hebrew 
text?  If  by  any  strange  device  you  can  persuade  yourselves  that 
this  is  not  an  error  after  all,  what  are  you  going  to  do  with  the 
man  who  thinks  with  John  Calvin  and  whom  you  cannot  con¬ 
vince?  Will  you  exclude  him  from  the  Church  because  he 
finds  bed’s  head  in  the  Old  Testament  inconsistent  with  staff 
in  the  Xew  Testament? 

(c)  The  epistle  to  the  Galatians  contains  a  serious  chronologi¬ 
cal  error,  according  to  the  opinion  of  most  scholars : 

“  Now  this  I  say  :  A  covenant  confirmed  beforehand  by  God,  the  law, 
which  came  four  hundred  and  thirty  years  after,  doth  not  disannul,  so 
as  to  make  the  promise  of  none  effect”  (Galatians  iii.  17). 

This  four  hundred  and  thirty  years  from  the  promise  to 
Abraham  until  the  law-giving  is  in  accordance  with  the  four 
hundred  years  of  the  prediction  in  Genesis  xv.  13  and  Acts  vii. 
6 ;  but  it  is  contrary  to  the  narrative  Ex.  xii.  40,  which  gives 
the  sojourn  in  Egypt  as  four  hundred  and  thirty  years.  How¬ 
ever,  the  LXX.  version  by  an  insertion  in  the  text  overcomes 
the  difficulty ;  but  this  text  is  not  accepted  by  the  best  criticism. 
This  difference  of  chronology  involves  an  error  either  on  the 
one  side  or  the  other.  Dillmann  shows  that  the  genealogical 


108 


THE  DEFENCE  OF  PROFESSOR  BRIGGS 


tables  are  also  widely  discrepant  in  the  number  of  generations 
during  the  period  from  the  descent  into  Egypt  till  the  law-giv¬ 
ing.  The  general  opinion  is  that  the  number  430  is  correct  and 
that  Stephen  and  Paul  are  in  error. 

Professor  Beet,  of  the  Wesleyan  Church  in  England,  says: 

“About  trifling  discrepancies  between  the  Hebrew  and  Greek  texts, 
Paul  probably  neither  knew  nor  cared.  And  they  have  no  bearing  what¬ 
ever  upon  the  all-important  matter  he  has  here  in  hand.  He  adopted 
the  chronology  of  the  LXX. ,  with  which  alone  his  readers  were  familiar ; 
knowing,  possibly,  that  if  incorrect  it  was  only  an  understatement  of 
the  case  ”  (Commentary  on  Galatians,  p.  90) . 

Dr.  Schaff  says : 

“  But  this  difference  in  the  chronology  of  the  Greek  Bible  and  our  pres¬ 
ent  Hebrew  text,  although  very  serious  in  a  historical  point  of  view',  is 
of  no  account  for  the  argument  in  hand.  Paul  means  to  say,  the  older 
an  agreement,  the  stronger  its  authority.  The  Hebrew  text  would 
strengthen  the  argument  ”  (Commentary  on  Galatians,  in  loco). 

I  shall  not  discuss  this  difficult  question.  But  I  ask  you  to 
consider  whether  you  are  going  to  make  the  divine  authority 
of  Holy  Scripture  depend  upon  the  removal  of  this  error  from 
the  text.  And  will  you  discipline  all  those  who  think  that 
you  cannot  make  the  four  hundred  and  thirty  years  of  the 
sojourn  in  Egypt  harmonize  with  the  four  hundred  and 
thirty  years  from  Abraham  to  the  Exodus? 

( d )  It  is  the  common  opinion  that  Stephen  makes  an  erro¬ 
neous  statement  in  Acts  vii.  16,  where  he  says: 

“And  they  were  carried  over  unto  Shechem,  and  laid  in  the  tomb  that 
Abraham  bought  for  a  piece  in  silver  of  the  sons  of  Hamor  in  Shechem.  ” 

The  late  Professor  Lechler  says : 

“Stephen  says  that  the  remains  of  Jacob  and  also  of  his  sons  were 
carried  to  Sychem ;  his  language  has  occasioned  here,  too,  perplexity 
with  respect  to  several  particulars.  1.  We  are  told  in  Genesis  i.  13 
that  Joseph  and  his  brethren  buried  the  body  of  Jacob  in  the  cave  of  the 
field  near  Hebron,  whereas  Stephen  says  that  Jacob  was  buried  in  Sychem. 
2.  According  to  Josh.  xxiv.  32,  the  Israelites,  when  they  took  possession 
of  Canaan,  buried  the  bones  of  Joseph,  which  they  brought  from  Egypt, 
in  Shechem  (Sychem)  ;  but  it  is  not  stated  in  this  passage  or  elsewhere 
in  the  Old  Testament  that  the  bones  of  Joseph’s  brethren,  whom  the  terms 


THE  INERRANCY  OF  HOLY  SCRIPTURE 


109 


employed  by  Stephen  include,  were  buried  at  the  same  place.  3.  Stephen 
says  that  Abraham  bought  the  piece  of  ground  in  Sychem,  of  the  sons  of 
Emmor.  Yet  it  was  not  Abraham,  but  Jacob,  who  bought  this  piece  of 
ground  of  the  former  owners  (Gen.  xxxiii.  18,  19).  Consequently,  Stephen 
confounded  the  latter  with  the  spot  near  Hebron,  which  Abraham  had 
bought.  Every  possible  attempt  has  been  made  to  explain  these  varia¬ 
tions,  from  the  period  in  which  the  oldest  manuscripts  were  written 
down  to  the  age  of  the  reformers,  and  thence  to  the  present  day.  In¬ 
terpreters  have,  without  success,  availed  themselves  of  every  resource 
which  the  laws  of  Criticism  or  of  Grammar,  or  the  principles  of  Lexi¬ 
cology,  or  of  Hermeneutics  seemed  to  offer.  The  theory  has  been  pro¬ 
posed  that  two  burials  are  described  in  terms  which  were  intentionally 
abbreviated,  or  that  the  passage  before  us  speaks  of  two  purchases.  It  is, 
however,  the  most  judicious  course  to  admit  frankly,  that,  with  refer¬ 
ence  to  the  purchase  of  the  ground  and  the  burial  of  Jacob,  it  might 
easily  occur  that  Stephen,  whose  discourse  treated  an  entirely  different 
and  a  loftier  theme,  should,  in  his  rapid  course,  confound  two  analogous 
transactions.  As  to  the  burial  of  Joseph’s  brethren  in  Canaan,  the  Old 
Testament  presents  no  conflicting  statements,  but  merely  observes  si¬ 
lence  ;  it  is  very  probable  that  such  a  tradition,  the  existence  of  which  at  a 
later  period  can  be  proved,  was  already  current  in  Stephen’s  age,  and 
adopted  by  him  ”  (Lechler,  “Acts,”  p.  116). 

Calvin  also  recognizes  this  error  of  Stephen : 

“  It  is  evident  that  he  [Stephen]  made  a  mistake  in  the  name  of  Abra¬ 
ham,  since  Abraham  bought  a  double  cave  of  Ephron  the  Hittite,  for  the 
interment  of  his  wife:  but  Joseph  was  buried  elsewhere,  viz.,  in  the 
field  which  his  father  Jacob  bought  of  the  sons  of  Hamor  for  an  hundred 
lambs.  Wherefore  this  passage  is  to  be  corrected”  (p.  110). 

The  late  Professor  Evans  in  holy  indignation  exclaims : 

“If  Stephen  transposes  certain  Old  Testament  incidents,  or  confuses 
certain  names,  does  that  affect  the  convicting  power  of  his  terrific  ar¬ 
raignment  of  an  apostate  Israel?  Was  not  the  power  of  the  Holy  Ghost 
in  every  word  that  he  spoke,  even  when  least  accurate?  Suppose  that 
one  of  his  hearers  had  undertaken  to  reply  to  him,  saying:  ‘You  have 
said  that  Abraham  left  Haran  after  the  death  of  his  father  Terah  ;  where¬ 
as,  if  you  study  the  figures  in  Genesis,  you  will  find  that  Terah  must 
have  lived  fifty  years  or  more  in  Haran  after  Abraham  left.  You  were 
mistaken,  also,  in  saying  that  Abraham  bought  the  sepulchre  of  the  sons 
of  Hamor  in  Shechem.  If  you  look  into  the  matter  a  little  more  closely 
you  will  find  that  that  was  Jacob,  and  that  Abraham  bought  his  purchase 
at  Hebron  of  Ephron  the  Hittite.  ’  But  would  that  have  silenced  Stephen? 
Such  a  criticism  on  such  a  speech  would  have  been  like  flinging  a  feather 
in  the  teeth  of  a  cyclone”  (“Inspiration  and  Inerrancy,”  pp.  165-167). 


110 


THE  DEFENCE  OF  PROFESSOR  BRIGGS 


Possibly  you  may  see  your  way  through  this  error,  but 
scholars  greater  and  wiser  than  you  cannot.  You  may  be 
ready  to  follow  the  opinion  of  an  American  divine : 

“In  all  such  cases,  it  is  necessary  to  consider  the  difficulties  which  at¬ 
tend  the  supposition  of  mistake  or  contradiction,  as  well  as  that  of  truth 
and  consistency,  especially  as  sceptical  critics  and  their  Christian  fol¬ 
lowers  are  accustomed  to  look  only  at  one  side  of  the  question.  In  this 
case,  for  example,  it  is  easy  to  cut  the  knot  by  assuming  a  mistake  on 
Stephen’s  part,  but  not  so  easy  to  account  for  its  being  made  by  such  a 
man,  addressing  such  an  audience,  and  then  perpetuated  in  such  a  his¬ 
tory,  without  correction  or  exposure,  for  a  course  of  ages”  (Alexander 
on  Acts,  p.  269) . 

Is  this  argumentation  to  be  made  a  test  of  orthodoxy?  Have 
you  no  pity  for  Calvin  and  Lechler  and  Evans?  Are  all  who 
see  as  they  do  to  be  cast  out  of  the  Presbyterian  Church  and 
given  over  to  Satan? 

(e)  Let  me  give  you  the  statement  of  another  American 
professor : 

“  The  greatest  reliance  is,  however,  placed  on  the  third  case  adduced — 
the  statement  of  Luke  that  Jesus  was  born  at  the  time  of  a  world  enrol¬ 
ment,  which  was  carried  out  in  Syria  during  the  governorship  of  Cyre- 
nius.  Weiss  offers  three  reasons  why  Luke  is  certainly  incorrect  here, 
which  Schiirer  increases  to  five  facts,  viz.  :  1.  History  knows  nothing  of 
a  general  empire  census  in  the  time  of  Augustus.  2.  A  Roman  census 
would  not  force  Joseph  to  go  to  Bethlehem  nor  Mary  to  go  with  him. 
3.  Nor  could  it  have  taken  place  in  Palestine  in  the  time  of  Herod.  4. 
Josephus  knows  nothing  of  such  a  census,  but,  on  the  contrary,  speaks 
of  that  of  Acts  v.  37  as  something  new  and  unheard  of ;  and,  5,  Quiri- 
nius  was  not  governor  of  Syria  during  Herod’s  life.  This  has  a  formid¬ 
able  look  ;  but  each  detail  has  been  more  than  fully  met”  (“Presbyterian 
Review,  ”  p.  248) . 

Professor  Weiss  and  Professor  Scliurer  are  of  the  highest 
rank  in  the  study  of  the  New  Testament.  There  is  no  Ameri¬ 
can  scholar  now  living,  unless  it  be  Professor  Thayer,  who 
could  claim  equal  recognition  by  the  Christian  world.  You 
may  be  convinced  by  the  reasoning  given  above,  but  what 
are  you  going  to  say  with  regard  to  the  multitudes  of  Chris¬ 
tian  scholars  who  are  not  convinced?  The  greatest  New  Testa¬ 
ment  scholars  in  the  world,  seeking  only  what  is  true  and  right, 
and  without  prejudice,  find  error  here,  and  they  are  entitled  to 


THE  INERRANCY  OF  HOLY  SCRIPTURE 


111 


our  respect  and  confidence.  But  the  author  of  this  reasoning 
does  not  win  our  confidence  in  his  fairness,  for  he  bandages  his 
eyes  at  the  very  beginning  of  such  an  investigation  by  winding 
about  them  a  rag  with  the  inscription,  “  A  proved  error  in 
Scripture  contradicts  not  only  our  doctrines,  but  the  Scripture’s 
claims  and  therefore  its  inspiration  in  making  those  claims.” 

( /)  This  same  anti-revisionist  makes  the  following  statement, 
which  possibly  may  convince  some  of  you : 

“Dr.  Fisher  most  wisely  rests  his  charge  against  the  complete  harmony 
of  the  four  evangelists,  viz.  :  the  alleged  disharmony  in  the  accounts  of 
the  place  and  phraseology  of  the  sermon  on  the  mount,  the  healing  of  the 
centurion’s  son,  the  denials  of  Peter,  the  healing  of  the  blind  man,  at 
Jerfcho,  and  the  time  of  the  institution  of  the  Lord’s  supper.  But  that 
in  each  of  these,  most  natural  means  of  harmonizing  exist,  are  even  in 
some  instances  recognized  as  possible  by  Dr.  Fisher  himself,  President 
Bartlett  has  lately  so  fully  shown  in  detail  that  we  cannot  bring  ourselves 
to  repeat  the  oft-told  tale  here”  (“Presbyterian  Review,”  II.,  p.  252). 

Prof.  George  P.  Fisher  is  an  authority  than  whom  there  is  no 
greater  in  America  in  questions  of  New  Testament  history. 
If  he  finds  lack  of  harmony  in  these  four  instances  in  the  gos¬ 
pels,  most  persons  will  conclude  that  there  must  be  valid  reasons 
for  his  opinion.  But  Prof.  Fisher  does  not  stand  alone.  He 
is  sustained  by  New  Testament  scholars  the  world  over.  It  is 
possible  that  this  advocate  of  inerrancy  may  have  the  right  of 
it,  and  that  all  these  scholars  may  be  wrong.  You  may  think 
that  you  may  safely  follow  him  and  rely  on  his  authority  rather 
than  on  the  others.  But  can  you  do  this  as  jurors?  Can  you 
in  the  divine  presence,  in  view  of  the  facts  adduced,  undertake 
to  affirm  it  as  the  truth  of  God,  as  an  essential  and  necessary 
article  of  faith,  that  these  and  other  like  cases  are  not  errors? 
You  may  be  able  to  persuade  yourselves  to  it  as  an  act  of 
allegiance  to  your  party  in  the  Church,  but  if  you  do  it  as 
jurors  you  forfeit  your  Christian  integrity  and  honesty  of  soul ; 
for  it  is  as  certain  as  the  sun  shines  that  the  great  majority  of 
this  Presbytery  do  not  and  cannot  know  the  certainty  of  all 
these  things  by  their  own  study  and  knowledge. 

(i g )  In  the  book  of  Genesis  there  are  two  stories  respecting 
the  wives  of  the  patriarchs  Abraham  and  Isaac,  which  are  so 
similar  that  it  is  commonly  supposed  that  they  are  two  differ- 


112 


THE  DEFENCE  OF  PROFESSOR  BRIGGS 


ent  stories  of  the  same  thing.  This  opinion  is  strengthened  by 
the  fact  that  the  one  of  them  (Gen.  xx.)  is  in  the  Ephraimitic 
document,  the  other  (Gen.  xxvi.)  in  the  Judaic  document. 
There  is  indeed  a  third  similar  story  where  the  scene  is  laid  in 
Egypt  according  to  Gen.  xii.  Delitzscli  calls  attention  to  the 
fact  that  Sarah,  according  to  the  context  in  which  Gen.  xx. 
stands,  must  have  been  ninety  years  of  age  when  Abimelek  took 
her  from  her  husband  to  be  his  concubine. 

The  late  Prof.  Delitzscli,  who  was  recognized  as  a  man  of  deep 
personal  piety  and  of  missionary  zeal,  as  well  as  a  great  Old 
Testament  scholar,  gives  it  as  his  opinion  that  the  editor  of  the 
Hexateuch  took  Genesis  xx.  from  the  Ephraimitic  document 
and  put  it  in  the  narrative  out  of  its  historical  position,  -very 
much  as  he  thinks  that  the  synoptists  put  the  account  of  the 
purification  of  the  temple  by  Jesus  at  the  end  of  His  ministry  in 
connection  with  His  third  passover,  whereas  it  belongs  accord¬ 
ing  to  the  gospel  of  John  at  His  first  passover.  Delitzsch  ex¬ 
plains  these  three  stories  as  three  different  traditions  which  the 
editor  used,  and  that  he  is  entitled  to  our  thanks  for  having 
given  the  three  faithfully  and  for  not  suppressing  any  of  them 
in  favor  of  the  others.  These  views  of  Delitzsch,  sustained  by 
Old  Testament  scholars  in  general,  may  seem  to  you  difficult 
to  reconcile  with  the  divine  inspiration  of  these  passages.  But 
Delitzsch  and  other  scholars  find  no  such  difficulty.  Have  you 
ever  thought  of  it?  The  difficulty  is  in  the  dogma  of  inspira¬ 
tion  in  which  you  have  been  trained.  It  is  not  in  the  Bible 
itself.  Think  of  it  for  a  moment.  Here  is  a  man  inspired 
by  God  to  gather  the  ancient  traditions  of  his  nation  into  an 
historical  writing  that  will  trace  the  unfolding  of  redemption 
among  the  patriarchs.  He  does  not  receive  these  stories  by 
divine  revelation.  Ho  scholar  thinks  of  such  a  thing.  He 
finds  these  stories  in  earlier  documents  and  uses  them.  He 
was  doubtless  guided  by  the  divine  Spirit  in  their  use,  he  was 
guided  in  his  purpose  of  selecting  such  stories  as  would  set 
forth  the  divine  grace  and  the  progress  of  redemption;  but 
was  it  necessary  that  the  divine  Spirit  should  enable  him  to 
decide  between  two  or  three  ancient  stories  of  similar  character? 
Was  it  essential  to  the  purpose  of  an  holy  writing  that  he  should 
decide  whether  these  were  three  events,  or  variant  traditions 


THE  INERRANCY  OF  HOLY  SCRIPTURE 


113 


of  two  events,  or  of  one  event?  Would  the  Hoty  Spirit  guide 
him  so  as  to  decide  as  to  the  locality,  whether  it  happened  in 
Philistia  or  in  Egypt ;  as  to  whether  it  was  the  wife  of  Abra¬ 
ham  or  the  wife  of  Isaac ;  and  as  to  what  exact  time  in  the  life 
of  either  of  them  the  event  occurred?  None  of  these  things 
were  at  all  necessary  to  the  purposes  of  grace.  The  lesson  of 
the  story  is  just  as  good  with  Abraham  as  with  Isaac,  with 
Pharaoh  as  with  Abimelek.  It  is  all  the  better  if  it  can  be 
shown  that  we  have  three  stories  of  the  same  event,  as  we  have 
three  stories  in  the  gospels  of  the  purification  of  the  temple. 

Prof.  Henry  P.  Smith  calls  attention  to  an  inconsistency 
between  the  books  of  Kings  and  Chronicles: 

(h)  “  But  the  high  places  were  not  taken  away  :  nevertheless  the  heart  of 
Asa  was  perfect  with  the  Lord  all  his  days  ”  (I.  Kings  xv.  14) . 

“  And  Asa  did  that  which  was  good  and  right  in  the  eyes  of  the  Lord 
his  God :  for  lie  took  away  the  strange  altars,  and  the  high  places,  and 
brake  down  the  pillars  and  hewed  down  the  Asherim  ;  and  commanded 
Judah  to  seek  the  Lord,  the  God  of  their  fathers,  and  to  do  the  law  and 
the  commandment.  Also  he  took  away  out  of  all  the  cities  of  Judah  the 
high  places  and  the  sun  images :  and  the  kingdom  was  quiet  before 
them  ”  (II.  Chron.  xiv.  2-5) . 

A  similar  conflict  is  found  between  I.  Kings  xxii.  43  and 
II.  Chron.  xvii.  16: 

“  And  he  walked  in  all  the  ways  of  Asa  his  father ;  he  turned  not 
aside  from  it,  doing  that  which  was  right  in  the  eyes  of  the  Lord  :  liow- 
beit  the  high  places  were  not  taken  away ;  the  people  still  sacrificed  and 
burnt  incense  in  the  high  places.  ” 

“And  his  heart  was  lifted  up  in  the  ways  of  the  Lord  :  and  furthermore 
he  took  away  the  high  places  and  the  Asherim  out  of  Judah.  ” 

This  conflict  might  be  removed  by  conjectural  textual  criti¬ 
cism  as  I  have  elsewhere  suggested ;  but  such  criticism  was  not 
proposed  by  the  Revised  Version  of  the  Old  Testament;  and  it 
is  opposed  by  the  fact  that  these  differences  are  in  accord  with 
many  others  and  they  seem  to  reflect  different  points  of  view 
of  the  compilers  and  writers.  As  they  stand  in  the  translations 
and  in  the  original  texts,  they  are  flat  contradictions,  and  either 
the  one  writer  or  the  other  must  be  in  error.  If  any  of  you 
can  avoid  the  opinion  that  these  are  errors,  you  are  entitled  to 

your  opinion.  We  have  no  desire  to  compel  you  to  say  that 
8 


114 


THE  DEFENCE  OF  PROFESSOR  BRIGGS 


these  or  any  others  are  errors.  But  have  you  any  right  to  force 
your  opinions  upon  us?  We  cannot  shut  our  eyes  to  contradic¬ 
tions.  We  cannot  throw  aside  the  laws  of  thought.  We  pre¬ 
fer  rather  to  see  the  truth  than  by  majority  votes  be  counted 
among  the  orthodox.  We  shall  be  true  to  the  divine  laws  of 
reasoning  even  if  that  reasoning  convicts  the  last  General  As¬ 
sembly  of  error. 

The  number  of  such  instances  as  I  have  given  above  might 
be  increased  to  an  indefinite  extent,  extending  over  a  large  part 
of  the  Old  Testament  and  the  New  Testament.  We  are  all 
reluctant  to  acknowledge  errors  in  Holy  Scripture.  We 
acknowledge  them  only  when  we  are  compelled  so  to  do  by 
evidence  that  cannot  honestly  be  gainsaid.  But  we  refuse  to 
accept  the  modern  dogma  of  inerrancy.  In  no  creed  of  Christen¬ 
dom  is  it  taught.  It  has  never  received  the  official  stamp  of 
any  Church  unless  you  suppose  that  the  last  General  Assembly 
used  such  a  stamp  in  its  deliverance  last  May.  If  the  Presby¬ 
terian  Church  should  be  induced,  either  by  a  revision  of  the 
Confession  or  by  a  decision  in  a  judicial  case,  to  make  such  a 
dogma  the  official  doctrine  of  the  Presbyterian  Church,  our 
Church  would  be  cut  off  from  historic  Christendom,  and  become 
a  mere  sect,  bearing  no  longer  the  historical  name  of  Calvinism, 
for  they  would  thereby  declare  Calvin  a  heretic ;  no  more  the 
historical  name  of  Presbyterian,  because  they  would  thereby 
separate  from  Westminster  Presbyterianism  and  the  Presby¬ 
terian  Churches  of  the  rest  of  the  world.  They  might  take  the 
name  of  an  old  sect  and  call  themselves  Scripturalists — but  they 
would  insensibly  become  by  a  necessary  process  of  degradation 
mere  Bibliolaters. 

You  are  now  to  determine  in  the  fear  of  God  whether  I  am 
guilty  of  this  Charge  or  not.  I  have  shown  you  that  I  sub¬ 
scribe  to  all  the  statements  of  the  Confession  and  of  Holy  Scrip¬ 
ture  in  the  passages  cited  to  sustain  the  Charge.  I  have  shown 
you  that  there  is  no  inconsistency  between  the  doctrine  that 
there  are  errors  in  the  Scriptures  as  I  explain  them  and  the 
statements  of  Confession  and  Scripture.  You  cannot  convict 
me  on  the  ground  of  Confession  or  Scripture.  You  can  only 
convict  me  on  the  ground  of  a  deliverance  of  the  Assembly  at 
Portland,  or  of  some  dogmatic  theory  in  your  minds.  If  you 


THE  AUTHENTICITY  OF  HOLY  SCRIPTURE 


115 


should  do  this  you  will  violate  the  constitution  of  the  Presby¬ 
terian  Church,  break  faith  with  me,  and  sear  your  own  con¬ 
sciences  before  God. 


VI 

THE  AUTHENTICITY  OF  HOLY  SCRIPTURE 

Charge  IV.  reads  as  follows : 

“  The  Presbyterian  Church  in  the  United  States  of  America 
charges  the  Rev.  Charles  A.  Briggs,  D.D.,  being  a  Minister  of 
the  said  Church  and  a  member  of  the  Presbytery  of  New  York, 
with  teaching  that  Moses  is  not  the  author  of  the  Pentateuch, 
which  is  contrary  to  direct  statements  of  Holy  Scripture  and  to 
the  essential  doctrines  of  the  Standards  of  the  said  Church, 
that  the  Holy  Scripture  evidences  itself  to  be  the  word  of  God 
by  the  consent  of  all  the  parts,  and  that  the  infallible  rule  of 
interpretation  of  Scripture  is  the  Scripture  itself.5’ 

It  is  evident  to  any  one  who  takes  the  pains  to  compare  the 
Charge  with  Specification  6th  of  the  first  Charge  in  the  original 
Charges  and  Specifications,  that  the  prosecution  have  changed 
their  base.  The  prosecution  originally  proposed  to  prove  that 
Dr.  Briggs’  assertion,  “that  Moses  is  not  the  author  of  the 
Pentateuch,55  was  a  fact  which  sustained  the  Charge  that  he 
taught  “  doctrines  which  conflict  irreconcilably  with  and  are 
contrary  to  the  cardinal  doctrine  taught  in  the  Holy  Scriptures 
and  contained  in  the  Standards  of  the  Presbyterian  Church, 
that  the  Scriptures  of  the  Old  and  New  Testaments  are  the  only 
infallible  rule  of  faith  and  practice.  ”  This  charge  they  have 
abandoned  and  propose  to  prove  that  the  “  teaching  that  Moses 
is  not  the  author  of  the  Pentateuch”  is  “  contrary  to  direct  state¬ 
ments  of  Holy  Scripture  and  to  the  essential  doctrines  of  the 
Standards  of  the  Presbyterian  Church.  (1)  ‘That  the  Holy 
Scripture  evidences  itself  ’  to  be  ‘  the  word  of  God  ’  ‘  by  the 
consent  of  all  the  parts,  ’  and  (2)  that  6  the  infallible  rule  of  in¬ 
terpretation  of  Scripture  is  the  Scripture  itself.’  ”  Here  are  two 
charges  which  you  have  decided  to  try  together,  but  to  vote 
upon  separately. 


116 


THE  DEFENCE  OF  PROFESSOR  BRIGGS 


Let  me  call  attention  to  two  principles  established  at  an 
earlier  stage  in  my  argument. 

(1)  It  is  not  sufficient  to  point  to  direct  statements  of  Holy 
Scripture,  unless  the  Church  has  already  defined  that  these 
statements  are  direct ,  or  it  is  agreed  by  the  parties  that  they 
are  direct.  I  shall  show  you  later  on  that  there  are  no  such 
direct  statements  of  Holy  Scripture.  But  even  if  I  should  fail 
in  such  proof,  it  is  plain  that  the  Church  has  not  defined  these 
so-called  direct  statements  of  Holy  Scripture  in  the  Westminster 
Standards,  and  therefore  it  is  not  lawful  to  use  them  as  evi¬ 
dence  of  an  essential  and  necessary  article  of  the  Confession  of 
Faith. 

(2)  It  is  not  sufficient  for  the  prosecution  to  claim  that  a  doc¬ 
trine  is  an  essential  doctrine  of  the  Westminster  Standards. 
They  may  claim  anything  and  everything.  It  is  necessary 
for  them  to  prove  their  claim.  The  court  have  doubtless  no¬ 
ticed  that  the  prosecution  have  made  no  attempt  in  their  argu¬ 
ment  to  present  such  proof.  They  have  made  no  use  of  these 
passages  of  our  Confession  whatever.  On  this  account  I  ask 
that  you  rule  Charges  IV.  and  Y.  out  of  court  as  entirely  desti¬ 
tute  of  proof.  But  I  shall  find  it  convenient  to  use  these  pas¬ 
sages  of  the  Confession  myself  and  turn  them  against  the  prose¬ 
cutors.  I  admit  that  two  doctrines  of  our  Standards  are  “  that 
the  Holy  Scripture  evidences  itself  to  be  the  word  of  God  by  the 
consent  of  all  the  parts  ”  and  “  the  infallible  rule  of  interpreta¬ 
tion  of  Scripture  is  the  Scripture  itself.”  But  I  deny  that  the 
clause  “  consent  of  all  the  parts  ”  is  an  essential  doctrine.  I  am 
glad,  however,  that  the  question  has  been  raised  at  this  very 
point,  because  upon  its  solution  will  depend  a  question  of  con¬ 
science  which  is  likely  to  emerge  ere  long  for  many  Presbyterian 
ministers. 

The  internal  evidences  given  in  Section  V.,  Chapter  I.,  to 
prove  that  Holy  Scripture  is  the  word  of  God  are :  (1)  heavenli- 
ness  of  the  matter;  (2)  efficacy  of  the  doctrine;  (3)  majesty  of 
the  style;  (4)  consent  of  all  the  parts;  (5)  the  scope  of  the 
whole  (which  is  to  give  all  glory  to  God);  (G)  the  full  discovery 
it  makes  of  the  only  way  of  man’s  salvation;  (7)  the  many 
other  incomparable  excellences;  (8)  and  the  entire  perfection 
thereof. 


THE  AUTHENTICITY  OF  HOLY  SCRIPTURE  117 

The  questions  which  arise  are :  (1)  Are  all  of  these  eight  evi¬ 
dences  essential  doctrines  of  the  Westminster  Confession?  (2) 
If  not,  is  there  any  especial  reason  why  “  consent  of  all  the  parts” 
should  be  deemed  essential  rather  than  other  evidences?  (3) 
If  any  or  all  of  the  evidences  are  essential  doctrines  of  our 
Standards,  will  the  new  evidences  which  are  proposed  by  over¬ 
ture  from  the  General  Assembly  as  additions  to  these  evidences 
and  indeed  as  the  first  and  second  in  the  order,  namely,  (1)  “  the 
truthfulness  of  the  history  and  (2)  the  faithful  witness  of  proph¬ 
ecy  and  miracle,  ”  be  essential  doctrines  of  our  Standards? 
Let  us  consider  the  latter  question  first. 

If  this  revision  should  be  adopted  by  a  vote  of  two-thirds  of 
the  Presbyteries,  such  a  vote  would  determine  that  these  evi¬ 
dences  are  regarded  by  the  Church  as  of  sufficient  importance 
to  assert  them  at  the  beginning  of  the  catalogue.  If  then  any 
of  the  eight  evidences  are  regarded  as  essential,  these  two  new 
evidences  could  claim  to  be  essential  on  the  ground  that  the 
Presbyterian  Church  by  a  decisive  vote  had  added  them  to  the 
eight.  If  this  should  be  so,  those  of  us  who  cannot  agree  to 
these  two  new  evidences  would  be  compelled  to  retire  from  the 
Presbyterian  Church,  because  we  cannot  subscribe  to  them. 
This  is  probably  the  underlying  motive  in  those  who  have  ad¬ 
vocated  this  revision.  They  desire  to  use  them  as  a  purge  to 
the  Presbyterian  Church.  If  therefore  you  recognize  that  the 
clause  “  consent  of  all  the  parts  ”  is  an  essential  article  of  the 
Confession,  we  shall  be  obliged  to  conclude  that  the  proposed 
additions  to  the  first  chapter  will  also  become  essential  articles, 
if  adopted.  In  that  case  I  suggest  that  the  simplest  way  in 
which  the  Higher  Critics  can  be  purged  from  the  Church  is 
by  the  adoption  of  this  revision,  and  by  the  decision  of  the 
supreme  court  of  the  Church  of  this  simple  question,  whether 
“  consent  of  all  the  parts  ”  is  an  essential  article  of  our  Confes¬ 
sion.  Let  no  one  misunderstand  me.  I  agree  to  the  proposi¬ 
tion  that  u  the  consent  of  all  the  parts  ”  of  Holy  Scripture  is  a 
fact  attested  by  a  scientific  study  of  the  Bible.  I  also  agree 
that  this  fact  and  the  other  facts  adduced  in  the  Confession  are 
evidences  that  Scripture  is  the  word  of  God.  I  also  agree  to 
the  fact  of  “  the  truthfulness  of  the  history  ”  and  “  the  faithful 
witness  of  prophecy  and  miracle;  ”  but  I  do  not  and  I  cannot 


118 


THE  DEFENCE  OF  PROFESSOR  BRIGGS 


agree  that  these  latter  are  internal  evidences  that  the  Scripture 
is  the  word  of  God.  It  is  not  the  facts  that  are  in  question. 
It  is  whether  these  facts  are  valid  evidences  for  Holy  Scripture. 
I  maintain  that  if  the  “  consent  of  all  the  parts  ”  be  an  essential 
article  of  faith  as  an  evidence  that  the  Scripture  is  the  word  of 
God,  then  it  will  be  claimed,  if  the  revision  succeed,  that  “  the 
truthfulness  of  the  history  and  the  faithful  witness  of  prophecy 
and  miracle  ”  are  essential  articles  as  evidences  that  the  Scrip¬ 
ture  is  the  word  of  God ;  and  all  who  cannot  subscribe  to  these 
evidences  will  be  obliged  to  retire  from  the  Presbyterian  Church. 

The  second  question  is  easily  answered  according  to  the 
principles  already  laid  down,  (a)  There  is  no  special  reason 
why  “  consent  of  all  the  parts”  should  be  regarded  as  more 
essential  than  any  of  the  other  evidences,  e.g.  “  heavenliness  of 
the  matter,  efficacy  of  the  doctrine,  the  scope  of  the  whole,  the 
full  discovery  it  makes  of  the  only  way  of  man’s  salvation,  and 
the  entire  perfection  thereof.”  ( b )  There  is  no  passage  of  Holy 
Scripture  given  in  the  Westminster  Confession  or  cited  by  the 
prosecution  in  support  of  this  phrase,  “  consent  of  all  the  parts,  ” 
and  therefore  it  cannot  be  regarded  as  essential,  (c)  It  might 
be  removed  from  the  Confession  without  destroying  the  argu¬ 
ment  from  internal  evidence.  It  is  not  essential  to  the  argu¬ 
ment.  It  is  not  used  in  all  of  the  Puritan  arguments  from  the 
internal  evidence.  It  is  one  of  many  evidences  which  may  or 
may  not  be  stated  as  occasion  requires.  ( d )  This  evidence  is 
not  in  the  Shorter  Catechism  and  therefore  not  essential. 

We  have  finally  to  answer  the  question  whether  all  of  these 
eight  evidences  are  essential  articles  of  faith  as  evidences. 

(a)  We  might  easily  show  that  the  eight  are  not  of  equal 
validity  as  evidences.  They  must  be  ranged  in  order  of  weight 
of  evidence.  They  are  not  an  exhaustive  list.  They  constitute 
a  useful  list  in  a  chain  of  probable  evidence,  (b)  Five  of  them 
are  given  in  the  Larger  Catechism,  but  three  are  omitted. 
Hone  of  them  are  given  in  the  Shorter  Catechism,  (c)  We 
claim  that  none  of  them  are  essential  because  the  Confession 
expressly  gives  them  as  probable  evidence,  sufficient  “abun¬ 
dantly  to  evidence,”  yet  “notwithstanding  our  full  persuasion 
and  assurance  of  the  infallible  truth  and  divine  authority 
thereof  is  from  the  inward  work  of  the  Holy  Spirit  bearing 


THE  AUTHENTICITY  OF  HOLY  SCRIPTURE 


113 


witness  by  and  with  the  word  in  our  hearts.”  This  divine 
evidence  is  essential,  this  alone  is  essential,  this  alone  is  an 
essentia]  article  of  faith  in  evidence  of  Holy  Scripture. 

Therefore,  the  claim  of  the  prosecution  in  their  Charge,  that 
it  is  an  essential  doctrine  of  the  Standards  of  our  Church,  “  that 
the  Holy  Scripture  evidences  itself  to  be  the  word  of  God  by 
the  consent  of  all  the  parts,”  cannot  be  maintained.  You  can¬ 
not  recognize  this  claim  wthout  putting  the  Presbyterian 
Church  in  grave  peril,  especially  in  view  of  the  proposed  revis¬ 
ion  of  the  first  chapter  of  our  Confession. 

If  this  court  should  still  resist  my  arguments  and  hold  that 
“  consent  of  all  the  parts”  is  an  essential  article  of  our  creed, 
then  let  me  say  that  although  I  deny  that  it  is  an  essential  doc¬ 
trine,  I  yet  agree  to  the  doctrine  itself.  But  I  fail  to  see  in 
what  respect  the  doctrine  that  Moses  did  not  write  the  Penta¬ 
teuch  contravenes  the  doctrine  of  the  “  consent  of  all  the  parts” 
of  Holy  Scripture,  or  the  doctrine  that  “  the  infallible  rule  of 
interpretation  of  Scripture  is  the  Scripture  itself.”  I  am  sure 
that  I  hold  these  three  doctrines.  It  may  be  that  the  prosecu¬ 
tion  can  convince  you  that  I  am  inconsistent  in  holding  these 
doctrines.  But  they  have  not  thus  far  ventured  to  make  such  an 
argument,  and  if  they  had  done  so  they  could  not  do  away  with 
the  fact  that  I  do  hold  these  doctrines.  You  will  then  have 
to  apply  the  law  of  the  supreme  court  in  the  Craighead  case 
that — 

“  No  man  can  rightly  be  convicted  of  heresy  by  inference  or  implica¬ 
tion  ;  that  is,  we  must  not  charge  an  accused  person  with  holding  those 
consequences  which  may  legitimately  flow  from  his  assertions.  Many 
men  are  grossly  inconsistent  with  themselves ;  and  while  it  is  right,  in 
argument,  to  overthrow  false  opinions,  by  tracing  them  in  their  connec¬ 
tions  and  consequences,  it  is  not  right  to  charge  any  man  with  an  opin¬ 
ion  which  he  disavows  ”  (Craighead  Case,  Minutes  of  the  General  As¬ 
sembly,  1834,  p.  123). 

You  cannot  convict  me  in  the  face  of  this  decision  of  the 
General  Assembly. 

But  let  us  rise  above  these  legal  aspects  of  the  case  to  the 
merits  of  the  question.  The  Confession  teaches  that  “  the  infalli¬ 
ble  rule  of  interpretation  of  Scripture  is  the  Scripture  itself.” 
Accordingly  we  must  resort  to  Holy  Scripture  for  the  infallible 


120 


THE  DEFENCE  OF  PROFESSOR  BRIGGS 


interpretation  of  the  question  whether  Moses  wrote  the  Pen¬ 
tateuch  or  not.  To  that  we  agree,  and  to  that  rule  we  shall  re¬ 
sort  so  soon  as  preliminary  questions  can  be  settled. 

Granting  that  there  is  “consent  of  all  the  parts”  of  Holy 
Scripture,  it  is  our  duty  to  determine  what  that  consent  is. 
This  we  shall  use  every  effort  to  determine.  But  it  is  evident 
to  the  court  at  the  outset  that  there  is  an  irreconcilable  differ¬ 
ence  of  opinion  between  the  parties  who  propose  to  resort  to  the 
same  tribunal  and  to  seek  the  same  guidance.  They  try  to 
prove  to  you  that  Holy  Scripture  tells  us  that  Moses  wrote  the 
Pentateuch.  I,  on  the  other  hand,  will  present  to  you  indubita¬ 
ble  evidence  that  “  the  consent  of  all  the  parts”  of  Holy  Scripture, 
and  the  interpretation  of  Scripture  which  is  given  by  Scripture 
itself,  force  the  conclusion  that  Moses  did  not  write  the  Penta¬ 
teuch.  The  argument  is  therefore  reduced  to  the  Scriptural 
argument.  But  we  are  confronted  at  the  outset  by  the  principle 
already  established,  that  the  Church  has  not  officially  deter¬ 
mined  the  interpretation  of  these  passages  of  Holy  Scripture,  and 
that  you  cannot  by  a  majority  vote  in  the  Presbytery  decide 
which  is  the  correct  interpretation.  The  constitution  of  the 
Church  forces  you  to  decide  by  the  interpretation  of  Scripture 
given  in  the  Confession  and  to  limit  your  decisions  within  the 
strict  lines  of  its  decisions.  To  depart  from  them  and  judge 
me  by  the  interpretation  of  these  passages  of  Scripture  by  a 
majority  vote  of  the  Presbytery  will  violate  the  constitution  of 
the  Church  and  all  the  precedents  of  ecclesiastical  process. 

Before  proceeding  to  the  evidence  from  Holy  Scripture,  let 
me  confront  a  preliminary  dogmatic  objection  which  is  current 
in  our  Church.  It  seemed  to  me  that  it  was  the  underlying 
motive  in  the  mind  of  the  prosecution  in  the  original  form  of 
the  Charge  and  its  Specification,  when  they  represented  that  the 
doctrine  that  Moses  was  not  the  author  of  the  Pentateuch  “  con¬ 
flicts  irreconcilably  with  and  is  contrary  to  the  cardinal  doc¬ 
trine  taught  in  the  Holy  Scriptures  and  contained  in  the 
Standards  of  the  Presbyterian  Church,  that  the  Scriptures  of 
the  Old  and  New  Testaments  are  the  only  infallible  rule  of 
faith  and  practice.” 

I  grant  that  there  is  a  bridge  by  which  it  has  been  proposed 
to  cross  the  chasm  between  these  two  statements,  “  Moses  is  not 


THE  AUTHENTICITY  OF  HOLY  SCRIPTURE 


121 


the  author  of  the  Pentateuch  ”  and  “  The  Holy  Scriptures  are 
the  only  infallible  rule  of  faith  and  practice and  that  this  is 
probably  the  bridge  in  the  mind  of  a  few  members  of  this  court, 
namely,  that  an  infallible  rule  of  faith  and  practice  can  onl}T 
come  from  well-known  prophets  and  apostles.  But  this  bridge 
is  an  airy  structure  which  will  not  bear  the  strain  that  it  is  pro¬ 
posed  to  put  upon  it.  It  yields  to  the  slightest  touch  of  the 
breath  of  criticism  and  lets  its  users  fall  into  a  gulf  of  absurd¬ 
ities.  And  even  if  it  were  a  sound  logical  bridge,  it  is  not  a 
Westminster  bridge,  or  a  Biblical  bridge,  and  therefore  no 
Presbyterian  minister  is  bound  to  cross  it.  Let  us  test  it  be¬ 
fore  we  cross  it. 

It  is  first  necessary  to  show  that  no  one  but  a  well-known 
prophet  can  write  a  divine  rule  of  faith  and  practice.  It  is 
next  necessary  to  show  that  Moses  is  the  only  well-known 
prophet  who  could  have  written  the  Pentateuch. 

Irenaeus  says :  “  God  inspired  Esdras  the  priest  to  recast  all  the 
words  of  the  former  prophets  and  to  re-establish  with  the  people 
the  Mosaic  legislation.”  If  Ezra  can  be  shown  to  be  responsible 
for  our  present  Pentateuch,  is  he  not  as  truly  a  well-known 
Biblical  and  inspired  man  and  as  capable  of  producing  a  rule  of 
faith  and  practice  as  Moses?  It  is  evident  that  even  if  the 
author  of  the  Pentateuch  must  have  been  some  well-known 
prophet,  it  does  not  follow  that  the  divine  authority  of  the  Pen¬ 
tateuch  stands  or  falls  with  the  name  of  Moses. 

But  is  it  true  that  an  infallible  rule  of  faith  and  practice 
can  only  come  from  these  holy  penmen  whose  names  history 
has  preserved  for  us?  That  is  the  view  of  an  eminent  divine 
and  possibly  the  prosecution  share  it.  This  divine  says:  “If, 
as  one  asserts,  ‘the  great  mass  of  the  Old  Testament  was  written 
by  authors  whose  names  are  lost  in  oblivion,  ’  it  was  written  by 
uninspired  men.”  .  .  .  “This  would  be  the  inspiration  of 
indefinite  persons  like  Tom,  Dick,  and  Harry,  whom  nobody 
knows,  and  not  of  definite  historical  persons  like  Moses  and 
David,  Matthew  and  John,  chosen  by  God  by  name  and  known 
to  men”  (“Observer,”  April  16,  1891).  The  author  of  these 
words  may  be  able  to  convince  you  that  his  theory  is  the  true 
theory.  But  what  right  have  you  under  our  constitution  to 
impose  this  dogma  upon  me?  It  is  not  stated  in  the  Confession 


THE  DEFENCE  OF  PROFESSOR  BRIGGS 


oo 


of  Faith.  It  is  not  given  in  Holy  Scripture.  No  Christian 
Church  has  ever  taught  it.  It  is  a  doctrine  of  recent  times. 
Modern  dogmaticians  invented  it  to  use  it  in  the  establishment 
of  their  theory  of  the  canon  of  Holy  Scripture.  They  had 
abandoned  the  doctrine  of  the  canon  taught  by  the  reformers 
and  in  the  Westminster  Confession,  and  they  devised  this 
erroneous  doctrine  in  its  place.  As  I  stated  some  time  ago : 

“  The  Reformers  found  the  essence  of  the  authority  of  the  Scriptures 
in  the  Scriptures  themselves  and  not  in  traditional  theories  about  them. 
Hence  they  were  not  anxious  about  human  authorship.  Luther  denied  the 
Apocalypse  to  John  and  Ecclesiastes  to  Solomon.  He  regarded  Jude  as  an 
extract  from  Second  Peter.  He  said  :  ‘What  matters  it  if  Moses  should  not 
himself  have  written  the  Pentateuch?’  He  thought  that  the  epistle  to  the 
Hebrews  was  written  by  a  disciple  of  the  apostle  Paul,  who  was  a  learned 
man,  and  made  the  epistle  as  a  sort  of  composite  piece  in  which  there  are 
some  things  hard  to  be  reconciled  with  the  gospel.  Calvin  denied  the 
Pauline  authorship  of  the  epistle  to  the  Hebrews,  and  doubted  the  Petrine 
authorship  of  Second  Peter.  He  held  that  Ezra  or  some  one  else  edited 
the  Psalter.  He  regarded  Malachi  as  a  pseudonym  for  Ezra.  The  great 
Reformers  found  no  difficulty  in  recognizing  anonymous  and  pseudony¬ 
mous  writings  in  the  canon  of  Scripture”  (“Whither?  ”  pp.  87,  88). 

W ill  you  follow  Calvin  or  Dr.  Sliedd,  the  Reformers  or  the 
Hodges,  Westminster  theology  or  Princeton  theology?  Look 
at  the  gulf  into  which  these  dogmaticians  are  leading  the  Pres¬ 
byterian  Church  ere  you  cross  their  bridge. 

Modern  Biblical  criticism  has  shattered  the  traditional  theo¬ 
ries  of  the  authorship  of  the  Biblical  books.  Is  it  a  safe  posi¬ 
tion  to  risk  the  canonicity  and  divine  authority  of  every  one  of 
these  books  upon  your  ability  to  convince  yourselves  and 
others  that  they  were  written  by  well-known  apostles  and 
prophets?  Look  at  the  facts  of  the  case.  (1)  Who  wrote  the 
book  of  Job?  What  Biblical  scholar  at  the  present  time  would 
hazard  his  reputation  on  the  statement  that  Moses  wrote  it? 
The  school  of  Delitzsch  put  its  composition  in  the  age  of  Solo¬ 
mon,  but  the  earliest  date  thought  of  in  the  present  state  of 
critical  opinion  is  in  the  reign  of  Josiah.  By  common  consent 
the  writing  is  anonymous.  Are  we  obliged  to  cast  it  out  of  the 
canon  on  that  account?  Listen  to  the  wise  words  of  Dr.  A.  B. 
Davidson,  the  prince  of  Old  Testament  scholars  in  Scotland, 
professor  in  a  Presbyterian  College  in  Edinburgh : 


THE  AUTHENTICITY  OF  HOLY  SCRIPTURE 


123 


“As  to  the  author  of  the  book  we  are  in  complete  ignorance.  He  has 
been  supposed  to  be  Job  himself,  Eliliu,  Moses,  Solomon,  Heman  the 
Ezraliite,  author  of  Ps.  lxxxviii.,  Isaiah,  Hezekiah,  author  of  the  hymn 
Is.  xxxviii.,  Baruch,  the  friend  of  Jeremiah,  and  who  not?  There  are 
some  minds  that  cannot  put  up  with  uncertainty,  and  are  under  the  ne¬ 
cessity  of  deluding  themselves  into  quietude  by  fixing  on  some  known 
name.  There  are  others  to  whom  it  is  a  comfort  to  think  that  in  this 
omniscient  age  a  few  things  still  remain  mysterious.  Uncertainty  is  to 
them  more  suggestive  than  exact  knowledge.  No  literature  has  so  many 
great  anonymous  works  as  that  of  Israel.  The  religious  life  of  this  peo¬ 
ple  was  at  certain  periods  very  intense,  and  at  these  periods  the  spiritual 
energy  of  the  nation  expressed  itself  almost  impersonally,  through  men 
who  forgot  themselves  and  were  speedily  forgotten  in  name  by  others” 
(Davidson’s  “Job,”  p.  lxviii). 

Will  you  vote  a  dogma  which  makes  Professor  Davidson  a 
heretic? 

(2)  Take  the  book  of  Ecclesiastes.  No  Hebrew  scholar 
can  possibly  suppose  that  it  was  written  by  Solomon,  be¬ 
cause  the  Hebrew  in  which  this  book  is  composed  is  the 
latest  in  the  old  Testament.  As  Delitzsch  says :  There  could 
be  no  history  of  the  Hebrew  language  if  Ecclesiastes  could  be 
Solomonic.  Will  you  vote  all  the  great  Hebrew  scholars  of 
the  world  heretics  because  they  tell  you  that  Kolieleth  is  a 
pseudonym,  and  that  we  do  not  know  its  author? 

(3)  Take  the  book  of  Samuel.  Professor  Kirkpatrick,  Regius 
professor  of  Hebrew  in  the  University  of  Cambridge,  says : 

“It  is  generally  agreed  that  the  book  is  a  compilation  from  different 
sources,  but  who  was  the  compiler,  there  is  no  evidence  to  show.  ” 

Will  you  rule  Professor  Kirkpatrick  out  from  among  the 
orthodox  because  he  cannot  accept  the  old  Jewish  tradition  that 
Samuel  was  the  author  of  books  the  most  part  of  which  relate 
to  events  which  transpired  long  after  his  death? 

(4)  Consider  the  books  of  Chronicles ,  Ezra ,  and  Nehemiah. 
Modern  scholars  regard  them  as  one  connected  work.  Canon 
Driver,  Regius  professor  of  Hebrew  in  the  University  of  Oxford, 
says : 

“  A  date  shortly  after  B.  c.  332  is  thus  the  earliest  to  which  the  com¬ 
position  of  the  Chronicles  can  be  plausibly  assigned  ;  and  it  is  that  which 
is  adopted  by  most  modem  critics.  From  the  character  of  his  narrative 


124 


THE  DEFENCE  OF  PROFESSOR  BRIGGS 


it  is  a  probable  inference  that  the  author  was  a  Levite,  perhaps  even  a 
member  of  the  temple  choir”  (p.  487) . 

W  ill  you  adopt  a  dogma  that  will  exclude  Canon  Driver  from 
orthodoxy  because  he  cannot  accept  the  discredited  tradition 
that  Ezra  was  the  author  of  all  these  books? 

(5)  Consider  the  Psalter.  What  scholar  at  the  present  day 
could  possibly  hold  to  the  old  tradition  that  it  was  written 
by  David,  or  that  the  titles  are  inspired?  Listen  to  Bishop 
Perowne : 

“The  conclusion,  then,  at  which  we  arrive  here,  is  the  same  as  in  the 
case  of  the  alleged  authorship  of  certain  Psalms.  The  Inscriptions  can¬ 
not  always  be  relied  on.  They  are  sometimes  genuine,  and  really  rep¬ 
resent  the  most  ancient  tradition.  At  other  times  they  are  due  to  the 
caprice  of  later  editors  and  collectors,  the  fruits  of  conjecture,  or  of  dim¬ 
mer  and  more  uncertain  traditions.  In  short,  the  Inscriptions  of  the 
Psalms  are  like  the  Subscriptions  to  the  Epistles  of  the  New  Testament. 
They  are  not  of  any  necessary  authority,  and  their  value  must  be  weighed 
and  tested  by  the  usual  critical  processes”  (Perowne’s  “Psalms,”  p.  103). 

Doubtless  some  of  you  cannot  reconcile  this  statement  with 
your  dogmatic  theory  of  the  Bible.  But  Biblical  scholars  have 
no  difficulty  because  they  construct  their  doctrine  of  the  Bible 
from  the  Bible  itself.  They  do  not  accept  it  from  dogmaticians. 
Those  of  you  who  have  been  accustomed  to  associate  the  22d 
Psalm  with  the  name  of  David  may  stumble  at  the  words  of 
the  Bishop  of  Worcester,  when  he  says  “that  the  Psalm  was 
composed  by  one  of  the  exiles  during  the  Babylonian  captivity  ” 
(p.  44) ;  but  if  the  Bishop  is  correct  in  his  opinion,  it  is  better 
for  you  to  stumble  and  fall  into  truth,  than  to  go  right  on  in 
the  smooth  and  easy  road  of  error. 

(6)  Dr.  Wright,  of  the  University7  of  London,  says  with  ref¬ 
erence  to  Proverbs:  “The  whole  book  was  in  ancient  times 
regarded  as  the  work  of  Solomon.  The  phenomena  of  the  book, 
however,  prove  it  to  be  of  various  authorship  ”  (“  Introduction 
to  the  Old  Testament,”  p.  162) ;  and  with  reference  to  the  Song  of 
Songs :  “  The  opinion  of  the  older  critics,  that  the  Song  of  Songs 
describes  dialogues  between  Solomon  and  an  espoused  bride,  is 
untenable.”  You  may  be  troubled  by  these  various  authors  of 
Proverbs  and  the  dramatic  poet,  whose  name  has  not  been  pre¬ 
served  to  us,  who  wrote  that  wonderful  drama  of  love;  but 


THE  AUTHENTICITY  OF  HOLY  SCRIPTURE 


125 


these  unknown  authors  trouble  you  because  of  your  false  theory. 
They  do  not  trouble  Dr.  Wright,  nor  do  they  trouble  me.  Use 
the  theory  we  are  opposing  as  a  bridge  and  you  will  find  that 
it  will  not  bear  your  weight.  If  you  try  to  study  the  literary 
phenomena  of  Holy  Scripture  on  this  bridge,  you  will  be 
obliged  to  throw  over  one  book  after  another  of  your  Bible, 
and  you  will  probably  lose  your  own  balance  in  the  agony  of 
unloading  and  go  over  yourself  into  the  gulf  of  unbelief. 
Many  a  man  has  had  this  experience.  I  doubt  whether  any  fresh 
and  honest  mind  can  escape  it,  if  he  attempt  to  cross  the  bridge 
of  the  dogmaticians. 

I  might  go  over  the  entire  Old  Testament  and  show  that, 
according  to  the  consensus  of  the  Old  Testament  scholars  of  the 
world,  the  exact  truth  was  stated  in  my  Inaugural,  when  it 
was  said : 

“It  may  be  regarded  as  the  certain  result  of  the  science  of  the  Higher 
Criticism  that  Moses  did  not  write  the  Pentateuch  or  Job  ;  Ezra  did  not 
write  the  Chronicles,  Ezra,  or  Nehemiah ;  Jeremiah  did  not  write  the 
Kings  or  Lamentations.  David  did  not  write  the  Psalter,  but  only  a  few 
of  the  Psalms ;  Solomon  did  not  write  the  Song  of  Songs  or  Ecclesiastes, 
and  only  a  portion  of  the  Proverbs ;  Isaiah  did  not  write  half  of  the  book 
that  bears  his  name.  The  great  mass  of  the  Old  Testament  was  written 
by  authors  whose  names  or  connection  with  their  writings  are  lost  in 
oblivion.  If  this  is  destroying  the  Bible,  the  Bible  is  destroyed  already. 
But  who  tells  us  that  these  traditional  names  were  the  authors  of  the 
Bible?  The  Bible  itself?  The  creeds  of  the  Church?  Any  reliable  his¬ 
torical  testimony  ?  None  of  these!  Pure,  conjectural  tradition  !  Nothing 
more  !  We  are  not  prepared  to  build  our  faith  for  time  and  eternity  upon 
such  uncertainties  as  these.  We  desire  to  know  whether  the  Bible  came 
from  God,  and  it  is  not  of  any  great  importance  that  we  should  know 
the  names  of  those  worthies  chosen  by  God  to  mediate  His  revelation” 
(p.  33). 

The  specimens  given  from  the  Old  Testament  have  their 
parallels  in  the  New  Testament.  As  I  have  already  said : 

“  (a)  It  is  probable  that  the  gospel  of  Mark  was  written  under  the  in¬ 
fluence  of  Peter,  and  the  gospel  of  Luke  under  the  influence  of  Paul,  but 
there  is  no  evidence  that  the  apostles  superintended  the  writing  and  pub¬ 
lication  of  these  gospels,  and  it  is  not  certain  that  they  had  very  much 
to  do  with  them.  Are  we  to  reject  these  gospels  because  there  is  uncer¬ 
tainty  as  to  apostolic  superintendence  and  influence? 

“  (6)  The  consensus  of  criticism  is  against  the  Pauline  authorship  of 


126 


THE  DEFENCE  OF  PROFESSOR  BRIGGS 


the  epistle  to  the  Hebrews.  There  is  no  probability  that  Paul  or  any  other 
apostle  had  anything  to  do  with  it.  Does  this  destroy  its  canonicity? 

“  (c)  It  is  not  certa  in  that  Matthew  wrote  the  present  gospel  of  Matthew". 
A  large  number  of  the  best  evangelical  critics  hold  that  the  real  Matthew 
was  the  Aramaic  Logia  at  the  basis  of  the  gospel,  and  that  our  present 
Matthew  is  made  up  chiefly  b}T  the  use  of  the  original  Matthew  and  the 
gospel  of  Mark  by  a  later  evangelist.  Does  the  canonicity  of  Matthew 
depend  on  this  question? 

“  ( d )  The  gospel  of  John,  after  a  long  and  severe  contest,  is  generally 
acknowledged  by  critics  to  be  from  the  hand  of  the  apostle.  It  is  most 
probable  that  the  apostle  John  wrote  it,  but  this  is  not  certain.  Is  a 
Christian  scholar  to  be  compelled  to  deny  its  canonicity  if  he  doubts 
whether  John  really  wrote  it? 

“It  is  evident,  if  the  elder  and  younger  Hodge  are  correct  in  their  the¬ 
ory  of  inspiration,  that  a  very  large  portion  of  the  Bible  is  in  peril  from 
the  Higher  Criticism,  and  that  the  only  way  to  save  the  Bible  is  to  de¬ 
stroy  the  ‘higher  critics.’  Doubtless  many  excellent  scholars  and  pious 
men  in  the  Protestant  churches  really  have  this  opinion ;  and  that  is 
one  of  the  gravest  perils  of  the  present  situation.  These  dogmaticians 
are  responsible  for  this  state  of  things  by  the  error  they  have  made  in 
making  inspiration  and  canonicity  dependent  upon  authenticity  ” 
(“Whither?”  pp.  84-86). 

It  is  possible  that  a  majority  of  this  court  may  agree  with 
this  modern  dogma  about  the  Bible  which  I  am  opposing.  But 
would  you  make  it  an  essential  and  necessary  article  of  faith 
in  our  Church  ?  Are  you  prepared  to  array  our  Church  against 
the  Biblical  scholars  of  the  world?  Are  you  resolved  at  all 
hazards  to  stem  the  onrushing  tide  of  Biblical  criticism?  If 
this  is  your  determination,  then  your  legal  course  is  plain. 
Prepare  a  memorial  to  the  General  Assembly  requesting  them 
to  send  down  overtures  to  the  Presbyteries  for  an  amendment 
of  the  Confession  so  as  to  state  this  dogma  as  an  essential  and 
necessary  article.  Let  us,  as  honorable  men,  meet  the  issue  and 
decide  it — as  we  decide  other  questions  of  revision.  But  do  not 
try  to  decide  such  a  momentous  question  by  indirection.  Do 
not  read  into  the  Confession  a  dogma  which  the  Westminster 
divines  never  dreamed  of.  As  honorable  Christian  gentlemen 
try  me  by  the  Confession.  You  cannot  honorably  try  me  by  a 
new  dogma,  forged  in  a  modern  school  of  theology  and  used  as 
a  substitute  for  the  Westminster  doctrine.  If  you  should  do 
such  a  thing,  think  you  that  the  counterfeit  will  not  be  exposed 
to  the  Christian  world?  You  would  dash  our  Church  to  pieces 


THE  AUTHENTICITY  OF  HOLY  SCRIPTURE 


127 


against  the  roaring  waves  of  an  outraged  scholarship  and  an 
affronted  Christianity. 

The  whole  case  of  the  prosecution,  therefore,  rests  upon  the 
passages  from  Holy  Scripture.  But  they  have  no  right  to  use 
any  passages  of  Holy  Scripture  which  the  Church  has  not  used 
in  formulating  an  essential  and  necessary  article  of  the  West¬ 
minster  Confession.  Therefore  they  have  no  right  to  use  these 
passages  at  all  in  their  prosecution.  They  have  no  proof  of  any 
proposition  in  the  Charge.  They  have  no  legal  case  against 
me.  You  are  obliged  in  law  to  dismiss  it. 

But  inasmuch  as  these  questions  of  the  Higher  Criticism  are 
burning  questions  of  our  times,  and  it  may  be  difficult  to  hold 
the  judges  to  a  strictly  legal  view  of  this  case,  I  shall  test  all  the 
texts  of  Holy  Scripture  offered  by  the  prosecution  and  show 
you  that  they  do  not  prove  that  Moses  wrote  the  Pentateuch ; 
and  then  I  shall  show  you  by  indubitable  evidence  that  Holy 
Scripture  teaches  that  Moses  did  not  write  the  Pentateuch. 

I  submit  in  printed  form,  that  it  may  be  read  by  the  court, 
“Who  Wrote  the  Pentateuch?  or,  The  Higher  Criticism  of 
the  Hexateuch.”  Taking  it  as  read  I  say: 

We  have  gone  over  all  the  proofs  from  Holy  Scripture  pre¬ 
sented  by  the  prosecution  to  establish  the  traditional  theory  of 
the  Mosaic  authorship  of  the  Pentateuch.  We  have  found 
them  insufficient  and  invalid.  We  have  indeed  considered 
more  than  thrice  as  many  passages  as  they  have  presented.  If 
anything  capable  of  being  used  as  a  proof  has  been  omitted  we 
do  not  know  it. 

I  might  have  asked  you  to  close  the  case  with  this  refutation. 
But  I  was  not  content,  in  the  present  state  of  opinion  in  the 
Presbyterian  Church,  to  leave  the  case  in  this  form.  The  work 
of  the  Higher  Criticism  of  the  Pentateuch  has  reached  such 
substantial  results  as  to  appeal  to  every  honest  mind  to  accept 
them.  It  is  not  negative  in  its  results,  it  is  positive.  It  is  not 
destructive,  it  is  constructive.  It  gives  vastly  more  precious 
doctrine  and  vastly  better  history  than  it  takes  away.  It  no 
longer  occupies  a  defensive  attitude.  It  is  aggressive  and  is 
sure  of  erelong  convincing  evangelical  America,  as  it  has 


128 


THE  DEFENCE  OF  PROFESSOR  BRIGGS 


already  convinced  the  rest  of  the  world.  Therefore  I  have 
given  you  a  sketch  of  the  history  of  opinion  on  the  authorship 
of  the  Pentateuch,  and  I  have  presented  the  argument  upon 
which  we  rely  to  prove  that  Moses  did  not  write  the  Penta¬ 
teuch.  These  you  have  before  you  in  printed  form,  in  the 
volume  entitled  “Who  Wrote  the  Pentateuch?  or,  The  Higher 
Criticism  of  the  Hexateuch.  ”  Taking  this  part  of  my  argument 
as  read,  let  me  say  that  it  is  necessary  that  you  should  weigh 
the  evidence  well  which  is  adduced  in  this  argument  ere  you 
make  a  decision  upon  this  important  question.  It  may  be  that 
many  of  you  will  be  unable  to  make  a  decision  on  the  merits  of 
the  case.  If  you  cannot,  you  must  give  me  the  benefit  of  the 
doubt.  You  cannot  vote  me  guilty  of  teaching  error  when  I 
say  that  Moses  did  not  write  the  Pentateuch,  unless  you  are 
convinced  that  it  is  an  error.  Furthermore,  if  in  your  opinion 
it  be  an  error,  is  it  an  essential  error?  Does  it  contravene  any 
essential  and  necessary  article  of  the  Westminster  Confession? 
Is  it  an  error  that  impairs  the  Westminster  system  of  doctrine? 
If  it  does  not,  you  cannot  condemn  me  even  if  you  should  think 
the  error  a  serious  one  from  your  point  of  view.  You  must 
judge  me  by  the  Westminster  Confession,  not  by  your  private 
opinion,  not  by  the  opinion  of  any  other  person  in  whose  judg¬ 
ment  you  may  have  more  confidence  than  you  have  in  me. 


YII 

WHO  WROTE  ISAIAH? 

Charge  V. : 

“  The  Presbyterian  Church  in  the  United  States  of  America 
charges  the  Pev.  Charles  A.  Briggs,  D.D.,  being  a  Minister 
of  the  said  Church  and  a  member  of  the  Presbytery  of  New 
York,  with  teaching  that  Isaiah  is  not  the  author  of  half  of  the 
book  that  bears  his  name,  which  is  contrary  to  direct  statements 
of  Holy  Scripture  and  to  the  essential  doctrines  of  the  Standards 
of  the  said  Church  that  the  Holy  Scripture  evidences  itself  to 
be  the  word  of  God  by  the  consent  of  all  the  parts,  and  that  the 
infallible  rule  of  interpretation  of  Scripture  is  the  Scripture 
itself.  ” 


WHO  WROTE  ISAIAH? 


129 


We  have  already  discussed  under  the  previous  Charge  all  the 
preliminary  questions  which  arise  with  reference  to  this  Charge. 
For  the  Charges  do  not  differ  in  their  statement  of  the  doctrines 
of  the  Confession  which  it  is  claimed  are  in  conflict  with  my 
teachings,  but  only  in  the  statement  of  that  special  part  of  my 
teachings  which  is  in  conflict  with  the  Confession.  There  it 
was  the  doctrine  that  Moses  did  not  write  the  Pentateuch ;  here 
it  is  the  doctrine  that  Isaiah  did  not  write  half  of  the  book  that 
bears  his  name.  We  have  shown  that  the  Westminster  Stand¬ 
ards  do  not  directly  or  indirectly  determine  the  question  of  the 
authorship  of  the  Pentateuch.  It  is  equally  clear  that  they  do 
not  directly  or  indirectly  determine  the  authorship  of  the  book 
of  Isaiah.  We  may  therefore  go  at  once  to  the  evidence  of  the 
“  consent  of  all  the  parts”  and  “  the  infallible  interpretation  of 
Scripture  given  by  Scripture  itself.” 

It  is  noteworthy  at  the  outset  that  no  evidence  whatever  is 
presented  from  the  Old  Testament.  If,  as  the  prosecution  claim, 
Isaiah  wrote  all  of  the  book  that  bears  his  name,  and  Isaiah 
lived  and  wrote  in  the  age  of  Hezekiah  in  the  midst  of  the  liter¬ 
ary  and  historical  development  of  Israel,  is  it  not  very  remark¬ 
able  that  they  should  find  no  evidence  from  the  literature  and 
history  of  the  Old  Testament  in  support  of  their  thesis?  I 
shall  endeavor  to  supply  this  lack  and  to  show  you  that  there 
is  a  great  mass  of  evidence  in  the  Old  Testament  to  show  that 
“  Isaiah  did  not  write  half  the  book  that  bears  his  name.” 

But  first  let  me  call  your  attention  to  the  fact  that  the  earliest 
rabbinical  authority  to  which  we  have  access  does  not  attribute 
the  book  of  Isaiah  to  Isaiah  as  its  exclusive  author.  In  the 
Baba  Bathra,  it  is  said:  “Hezekiah  and  his  company  wrote 
Isaiah,  Proverbs,  Song  of  Songs,  and  Ecclesiastes.”  This 
probably  implies  editorship  rather  than  authorship.  But  the 
association  of  Isaiah  with  Proverbs  in  connection  with  the  so- 
called  college  of  Hezekiah  implies  at  least  editorial  wTork  on 
the  part  of  that  college  in  connection  with  Isaiah  as  well  as 
with  Proverbs,  and  so  far  impairs  the  integrity  of  the  book  and 
raises  the  question  what  share  Isaiah  had  in  the  book  and  what 
share  this  college  had  in  it. 

This  theory  of  the  composition  of  Isaiah  was  probably  due 
to  the  circumstance  which  the  most  superficial  student  can 
9 


130 


THE  DEFENCE  OF  PROFESSOR  BRIGGS 


hardly  fail  to  notice,  that  there  are  four  historical  chapters  in 
the  middle  of  the  book  (xxxvi.-xxxix.)  which  were  doubtless 
taken  from  the  book  of  Kings,  with  which  they  agree,  except 
for  minor  editorial  changes  and  the  insertion  of  the  song  of 
Hezekiah.  These  chapters,  depending  on  the  book  of  Kings, 
must  have  been  given  their  present  position  some  time  after 
the  composition  of  the  book  of  Kings.  It  was  easy  for  the 
ancient  rabbins  to  think  that  the  college  of  Hezekiah  wrote 
this  section  of  the  book  of  Kings  on  the  theory  of  a  succession 
of  prophets  each  contributing  a  part  of  the  histories  until  they 
were  all  completed ;  but  no  modern  scholar  could  entertain  such 
a  theory.  These  chapters  imply,  to  any  one  who  understands 
the  composition  of  the  book  of  Kings,  an  exilic  or  post-exilic 
editor  who  gave  them  their  present  place. 

It  is  also  of  some  consequence  to  notice  the  order  of  the 
prophets  in  the  most  ancient  list  of  the  sacred  books,  namely, 
Jeremiah,  Ezekiel,  Isaiah,  and  the  Twelve.  The  later  Gemara 
or  commentary  upon  this  early  Beraitha  shows  that  later  rab¬ 
bins  were  troubled  by  this  arrangement.  The  question  is  raised : 
“  How  is  it?  Isaiah  was  before  Jeremiah  and  Ezekiel.  Ought 
Isaiah  to  be  placed  before  at  the  head?”  It  is  answered :  “  Since 
the  book  of  Kings  ends  in  ruin,  and  Jeremiah  is  all  of  it  ruin, 
and  Ezekiel  has  its  beginning  ruin  and  its  end  comfort,  we  join 
ruin  to  ruin  and  comfort  to  comfort.”  It  is  possible  that  some 
of  }rou  may  be  satisfied  with  this  explanation.  And  yet  you 
should  not  blame  me  if  I  conclude  that  their  order  was  due  to 
an  early  traditional  consciousness  that  Isaiah  was  a  collection 
of  writings  rather  than,  like  Jeremiah  and  Ezekiel,  the  work  of 
a  single  author,  and  that  therefore  it  was  more  appropriately 
placed  after  Ezekiel  and  before  the  collection  of  the  twelve 
minor  prophets.  At  least  there  was  a  consciousness  that  Isaiah 
had  to  do  with  the  restoration  from  exile,  and  therefore  that 
it  more  naturally  followed  Ezekiel  than  preceded  Jeremiah. 
In  later  times  when  this  primitive  tradition  was  lost  and  the 
explanation  of  the  Gemara  was  followed,  the  Massorites  adopted 
the  order,  Isaiah,  Jeremiah,  and  Ezekiel,  which  we  now  follow. 
When  now  we  look  at  the  book  of  Isaiah,  we  see  that  the  ancient 
rabbins  were  entirely  correct  in  their  arrangement;  for  the 
longest  and  most  magnificent  prophecy  in  the  Old  Testament  is 


WHO  WROTE  ISAIAH? 


131 


given  in  the  last  twenty-seven  chapters  of  the  book.  This 
great  prophecy  and  several  lesser  anonymous  prophecies  have 
for  their  theme  the  destruction  of  Babylon  and  the  restoration 
of  the  Jews.  Accordingly  one  feels  that  the  logical  order  is 
certainly  Jeremiah,  Ezekiel,  and  Isaiah,  and  the  question  springs 
into  the  mind,  and  it  cannot  be  restrained,  Was  not  that  the 
chronological  order  likewise? 

It  does  not  seem  reasonable  to  suppose  that  an  exilic  or  post- 
exilic  editor  would  insert  the  four  historical  chapters  in  the 
midst  of  the  prophecies  of  Isaiah.  He  would  append  the  his¬ 
torical  chapters  to  the  prophecies  if  those  prophecies  had  indeed 
come  down  to  him  in  a  book  bearing  the  name  of  Isaiah.  He 
would  not  tamper  with  its  structure.  If,  however,  we  suppose 
that  this  editor  did  not  have  before  him  a  book  of  Isaiah’s 
prophecies  containing  all  these  prophecies,  and  that  the  editor 
collected  all  these  prophecies  and  issued  them  in  the  form  in 
which  we  now  find  them,  how  do  we  know  that  he  edited  them 
as  Isaiah’s  prophecies?  How  do  we  know  that  he  did  not  edit 
them  as  a  collection  of  prophecies,  giving  those  of  Isaiah  first 
and  afterward  others  of  other  unknown  prophets? 

The  title  at  the  beginning  of  the  book  of  Isaiah  is  as  follows : 

“  The  vision  of  Isaiah  the  son  of  Amos,  which  he  saw  con¬ 
cerning  Judah  and  Jerusalem,  in  the  days  of  Uzziah,  Jotham, 
Ahaz,  and  Hezekiah,  kings  of  Judah.” 

This  is  appropriate  to  the  first  collection  I. -XI.,  but  certainly 
has  no  propriety  of  reference  to  the  second  collection  of  mes¬ 
sages  to  the  nations  or  to  the  other  and  later  parts  of  the  book ; 
and  then  again  we  have  no  clew  to  the  historical  value  of  this 
title.  It  has  been  shown,  many  times,  that  the  titles  of  the 
Psalms  and  of  other  portions  of  the  Old  Testament  writings  are 
often  mere  conjectures  of  late  scribes,  and  that  these  are  not  to 
be  considered  as  a  part  of  the  inspired  Scriptures.  But  what¬ 
ever  we  may  think  of  this  matter,  this  title  does  not  cover  the 
whole  of  the  present  book,  as  its  contents  show. 

The  great  prophecy  in  the  last  twenty-seven  chapters  bears 
no  title :  it  is  anonymous.  There  is  nothing  about  it,  therefore, 
to  indicate  that  its  editor  or  original  author  designed  that  it 
should  be  regarded  as  by  Isaiah.  Is  it  not  the  more  natural 
supposition  that  this  great  prophecy  was  at  first  apart  by  itself 


132 


THE  DEFENCE  OF  PROFESSOR  BRIGGS 


and  that  the  collection  originally  closed  with  the  four  historical 
chapters ;  and  that  in  the  first  arrangement  of  the  second  divi¬ 
sion  of  the  canon  into  the  four  prophetic  histories  and  the  four 
prophetic  writings,  a,s  the  twelve  were  grouped  into  one  book, 
so  the  prophecy  of  the  Great  Unknown  was  joined  to  the  col¬ 
lection  of  prophecies  embracing  the  first  thirty-nine  chapters  of 
Isaiah  so  as  to  make  the  four  books  as  nearly  as  possible  equal 
in  size?  Let  me  give  you  a  general  statement  of  this  wonder¬ 
ful  prophecy. 


I. — The  Prophecy ,  Isaiah  xl.-lxvi. 

Isaiah  xl.-lxvi.  is  a  book  of  comfort,  cheering  the  exiles  of 
Israel  with  the  promise  of  the  advent  of  Yahweh  to  redeem  them 
from  bondage  and  restore  them  to  their  holy  land.  It  is  a 
further  unfolding  of  Jeremiah’s  book  of  comfort.  The  apoca¬ 
lypse  of  Isaiah  xxxiv.,  xxxv.  is  its  prelude,  but  it  differs  from 
that  apocalypse  in  that  the  order  of  judgment  and  redemption 
is  inverted.  The  judgment  of  the  nations  is  separated  from  the 
judgment  of  Babylon,  and  is  associated  with  the  new  Jerusa¬ 
lem  in  a  final  conflict  there  after  the  model  of  Ezekiel.  This  is 
given  in  the  appendix  to  the  prophecy,  and  does  not  enter  into 
the  unfolding  of  its  great  theme.  The  prophecy  itself  is  rather 
a  presentation  of  the  glories  of  redemption.  The  author  stands 
on  the  loftiest  peak  of  prophecy.  He  masses  more  Messianic 
predictions  in  his  book  than  any  of  the  prophets  that  preceded 
him.  He  carries  the  Messianic  idea  to  a  much  higher  stage  of 
development,  so  that  he  becomes  the  evangelical  prophet,  who 
seems  to  be  the  nearest  to  the  Messiah  and  the  theology  of  the 
new  Covenant.  The  circumstances  of  the  exile  were  favorable 
to  this.  It  is  doubtful  whether  it  was  possible  for  a  prophet 
living  in  the  land  of  Israel,  in  the  use  of  the  ceremonial  of  the 
temple  of  Solomon,  or  the  temple  of  Zerubbabel,  to  attain  those 
profound  spiritual  conceptions  of  God  and  divine  things  that 
pervade  the  whole  of  this  sublime  poem.  Even  Ezekiel  was  too 
near  the  old  temple  to  escape  altogether  from  the  influence  of 
its  institutions.  But  the  prophecy  of  the  Great  Unknown  re¬ 
flects  the  experience  of  a  prophet  who  had  lived  long  in  exile. 
To  him  the  worship  of  Yahweh  consists  in  prayer  and  fasting,  in 


WHO  WROTE  ISAIAH? 


133 


observance  of  the  Sabbath,  and  keeping  pure  from  the  abomina¬ 
tions  of  the  heathen.*  By  these  more  spiritual  religious  exer¬ 
cises  the  faithful  people  of  God  could  testify  their  attachment 
to  the  religion  of  their  fathers,  without  any  sacred  places  or 
sacred  institutions.  They  were  thereby  brought  into  closer 
communion  with  their  God,  when  priestly  mediation  and  cere¬ 
monial  access  were  out  of  the  question. 

This  marvellous  prophecy  is  certainly  in  its  present  form  a 
single  composition,  and  yet  it  is  difficult  to  show  any  close  con¬ 
nection  between  its  parts.  Many  of  them  can  be  removed  with¬ 
out  disturbing  the  flow  of  its  thought  and  emotion.  There  is 
indeed  a  lack  of  connection  in  several  places  that  has  attracted 
the  attention  of  critics,  and  has  led  to  the  conjecture  that  the 
prophet  uses  several  more  ancient  prophecies.  This  should  not 
surprise  us,  for  it  is  characteristic  of  the  writers  of  the  period 
to  use  older  prophets.  There  are  not  a  few  citations  from  earlier 
writings  that  are  evident,  f  These  examples  suggest  that  there 
are  others  that  are  not  so  evident,  but  that  may  be  detected  by 
the  methods  of  literary  criticism. 

The  prophecy  is  divided  into  three  sections  of  nine  chapters 
each  by  the  refrains,  J  xlviii.  22,  lvii.  20,  21,  lxvi.  24. 

But  these  refrains  are  more  suited  to  the  last  chapter  than  to 
the  body  of  the  prophecy.  We  should  expect  that  the  refrains 
of  the  prophecy  would  emphasize  rather  its  great  theme.  A 
closer  examination  of  the  piece  discloses  just  such  refrains  as 
we  should  expect  in  xlii.  14-17,  xlviii.  20-22,  lii.  11,  12,  lvii. 
14-21,  lxii.  10-12.  These  all  involve  the  divine  advent  and  the 
deliverance  from  Babylon. 

The  last  of  these  refrains  corresponds  so  closely  with  the 
introduction  to  the  prophecy  xl.  1-12  that  we  may  regard  it  as 
the  original  conclusion.  This  is  in  accord  with  other  pecul¬ 
iarities  of  the  closing  section.  The  little  piece,  Ixiii.  1-6,  is 
of  earlier  date.  It  has  no  sort  of  connection  with  its  present 
context.  And  the  section  Ixiii.  7-lxvi.  betrays  a  later  period 
of  composition  and  a  different  train  of  thought  from  that  which 
pervades  the  body  of  the  prophecy.  The  division  of  the 

*See  especially  Isa.  lii.  11,  lvi.  1-8,  lviii.,  lxvi.  17. 

f  See  Isa.  li.  11,  lxv.  25. 

\  See  Delitzsch,  “Isaiah,”  ii.  p.  129. 


134 


THE  DEFENCE  OF  PROFESSOR  BRIGGS 


prophecy  into  three  parts  seems  to  have  come  from  the  final 
arrangement  when  the  appendix  was  added. 

A  careful  examination  of  the  body  of  the  prophecy  discloses 
other  features  that  show  earlier  and  later  sections.  There  are 
differences  in  rhythm — trimeters,  pentameters,  and  hexa¬ 
meters.*  These  differences  might  have  been  designed  to  give 
variety  of  movement  to  a  poem  of  such  great  length.  But  there 
are  certain  facts  that  seem  to  imply  that  the  trimeters  were 
originally  a  prophecy  by  itself.  The  introduction,  the  conclu¬ 
sion,  and  the  intervening  refrains  have  the  longer  movement. 
If  there  be  a  difference  in  date,  the  trimeters  must  be  earlier 
than  the  framework  of  the  prophecy  that  incloses  them.  There 
are  also  several  long  pieces  of  the  pentameter  movement  and 
lyrics  in  the  hexameter  movement.  But  there  are  several  other 
important  differences,  among  which  we  may  mention — (1) 
That  the  great  theme  of  the  trimeters  is  the  divine  advent  for 
the  deliverance  of  the  servant  of  Yahweh,  and  that  in  the  penta¬ 
meters  and  hexameters  the  wife  and  mother,  Zion,  takes  the  place 
of  the  servant  in  a  parallel  representation ;  (2)  that  the  great  con¬ 
queror  who  is  to  be  the  divine  instrument  in  the  deliverance  of 
Israel  is  referred  to  in  the  trimeters  in  general  terms,  but  in 
the  other  part  of  the  poem  is  named  by  his  name,  Cyrus;  f  (3) 
that  the  pentameters  use  quite  frequently  the  divine  name 
’Adonay  Yahweh.  It  seems  to  me,  therefore,  that  there  was 
an  earlier  prophecy  with  the  trimeter  movement,  whose  great 
theme  was  the  divine  deliverance  of  the  servant  of  Yahweh, 
and  that  this  was  taken  up  into  a  larger  prophecy  in  a  second 
edition  and  associated  with  a  parallel  theme,  the  divine  deliver¬ 
ance  of  Zion,  the  wife  of  Yahweh. 

The  trimeter  poem  that  constitutes  the  original  basis  of  the 
prophecy  of  the  Great  Unknown  seems  to  have  had  its  own  divi- 


*  “  It  is  not  always  easy  to  distinguish  hexameters  from  trimeters,  for 
he  caesura  of  the  hexameter  usually  falls  in  the  middle  of  the  line  divid- 
ng  it  into  two  trimeters.  But  they  may  be  distinguished  in  part  by  the 
occurrence  of  the  caesura  sometimes  after  the  second  accent  and  sometimes 
after  the  fourth  accent ;  and  in  part  by  the  fact  that  the  second  half  of 
the  hexameter  line  is  complementary  to  the  first  ”  (“  Biblical  Study,  ”  p. 
283) . 

flsa.  xliv.  28,  xlv.  1;  comp.  xlvi.  11. 


WHO  WROTE  ISAIAH? 


135 


sions.  We  may  distinguish  five  parts:  (1)  xl.  12-xli.  10,  xli. 
13-xlii.  13;  (2)*  xlii.  18-xliv.  23;  (3)  xlviii.  1-11,  xlix.  1-13; 
(4)  lii.  13,  liii. ,  lv. ;  (5)  lviii.-lix.,  lxi.  These  parts  close  with 
little  hymns  or  pieces  of  xsimilar  character.  The  theme  of  these 
trimeters  is  the  deliverance  of  the  servant  of  Yahweli. 

The  second  edition  of  the  prophecy  is  a  book  of  comfort  to 
Zion,  who  is  personified  and  represented  as  the  wife  of  Yahweli 
and  the  mother  of  its  inhabitants.  The  introduction,  the  conclu¬ 
sion,  and  the  four  intermediate  refrains,  together  with  the 
several  pieces  with  which  they  are  connected,  all  set  forth  the 
same  theme.  The  advent  of  Yahweli  is  at  hand.  He  comes  to 
comfort  Zion  and  restore  her  wastes.  His  people  are  to  go 
forth  from  Babylon  and  pass  through  the  wilderness  to  the  Holy 
Land.  The  scenes  of  the  exodus  from  Egypt  are  to  be  tran¬ 
scended  in  marvellous  transformations  of  nature  and  by  the 
wonders  of  the  divine  guidance.  Zion  is  the  central  figure  of 
this  second  edition  of  the  prophecy,  as  the  servant  of  Yaliweh  is 
the  chief  feature  of  the  first  edition. 

The  prophecy  of  the  Great  Unknown  was  finally  issued  with 
an  appendix  embracing  chaps.  Ixiii.-lxvi.  This  is  composed 
of  one  little  piece  of  trimeter  poetry  of  an  early  date,  already 
considered  in  an  appropriate  place,  and  two  larger  pieces  of 
longer  rhythm.  The  earlier  of  these,  chaps,  lxiii.  7,  lxiv., 
is  a  lamentation  and  supplication.  The  latter,  chaps,  lxv., 
lxvi.,  is  apocalyptic  in  character,  resembling  those  apocalypses 
that  we  have  considered  at  the  opening  of  this  chapter.  The 
judgment  is  here  a  discrimination  between  the  righteous  and 
the  wicked  without  regard  to  nationality. 

The  internal  evidences  for  the  exilic  composition  of  this  great 
prophecy  are  overwhelming. 

(1)  The  argument  from  language. 

This  is  so  well  presented  by  Canon  Driver  in  his  “  Isaiah, 
His  Life  and  Times,”  that  I  beg  leave  to  call  your  attention  to  his 
word  lists.  He  gives  thirty-seven  items  of  words  and  phrases  of 
the  Isaiah  of  the  age  of  Hezekiah  and  thirty-one  items  of  words 
and  phrases  of  the  Great  Unknown,  which  show  unmistakably 
that  these  are  not  only  different  writers,  but  writers  far  apart 
in  time. 

I  shall  mention  a  few  of  the  more  striking  examples. 


136 


THE  DEFENCE  OF  PROFESSOR  BRIGGS 


As  Driver  says,  the  figure  of  “  Yahweh’s  hand  ‘stretched 
out’  or  ‘swung’  over  the  earth,  and  bearing  consternation  with 
it,  ”  is  applied  by  Isaiah  with  singular  picturesqueness  and  force : 
v.  25;  ix.  11,  16,  20;  x.  4;  xiv.  26,  27;  xxiii.  11;  xxxi.  3;  xi. 
15;  xix.  16.  It  is  used  so  often  as  to  be  characteristic. 

The  Great  Unknown  uses  often  the  “  Arm  of  Yahweh :  ”  xl. 
11;  xxviii.  14;  li.  5,  a  and  b,  9;  lii.  10;  liii.  1;  lix.  16  b  (cf.  xl. 
10) ;  lxii.  8 ;  lxiii.  5,  12.  It  is  one  of  his  characteristics.  This 
last  is  used  in  Isaiah  only  in  xxx.  30;  xxxiii.  2. 

(2)  'J*w  as  a  divine  name  is  used  in  Isaiah  nineteen  times,  but 
in  the  Great  Unknown  only  in  xlix.  14,  and  here  apparently 
not  as  a  divine  name,  but  as  an  address — my  lord,  nuos  mn»  y-w 
is  used  eight  times  in  Isaiah,  but  is  not  in  the  Great  Unknown, 
nwas  nim  appears  thirty-three  times  in  Isaiah,  but  only  six  times 
in  the  Great  Unknown,  nwas  nim  p-wn  is  characteristic  of  Isaiah : 
i.  24;  iii.  1;  x.  33;  xix.  4  ('Pin  x.  16  in  common  M.  T. ;  not  Mas- 
sora,  doubtless  scrib.  error),  but  is  not  used  by  the  Great 
Unknown.  'jin  is  used  in  the  Great  Unknown  fourteen 
times,  but  in  Isaiah  only  in  vii.  7;  xxviii.  16;  xxx.  15.  The 
usage  of  Isaiah  agrees  with  Amos,  whereas  the  Great  Unknown 
agrees  in  usage  with  Ezekiel.  Elohim  alone  is  used  but  once 
in  Isaiah  and  Elohim  with  suffixes  four  times.  But  in  the 
Great  Unknown  Elohim  is  used  nine  times  alone  and  twenty- 
nine  times  with  suffixes,  showing  a  tending  to  the  later  post- 
exilic  usage. 

(3)  Several  Aramaic  words  are  to  be  noticed  in  the  Great 
Unknown,  e.g.  ■vn  to  test ,  try  for  ?na  xlviii.  10;  and  Ara¬ 
maic  Nnna  lxv.  25  for  T^i  of  Is.  xi.  6,  7. 

(4)  The  Great  Unknown  shows  a  fondness  for  the  particles 
*1N  (fourteen  times),  ^  (ten  times),  ijra*?  (fifteen  times),  as  is 
noted  by  Dillmann. 

(5)  Driver  calles  attention  to  the  fact  that  in  relative  clauses 
the  relative  is  omitted  by  Isaiah  only  six  times,  whereas  in  the 
Great  Unknown  it  is  omitted  nearly  sixty  times. 

(6)  I  have  noticed  a  syntactical  usage  which,  so  far  as  I 
know,  others  have  not  mentioned.  Quite  frequently  in  the 
Great  Unknown  there  is  a  departure  from  classic  usage  in  that 
the  weak  waw  with  the  imperfect  is  used  for  the  waw  con¬ 
secutive  of  the  perfect  of  the  classic  style.  This  corresponds 


WHO  WROTE  ISAIAH? 


137 


with  the  usage  of  Ezekiel,  who  gives  the  weak  waw  with  the 
perfect  for  the  waw  consecutive  of  the  imperfect. 

II. — Argument  from  Style 

The  argument  from  style  is  so  well  stated  by  Driver  in  his 
comparison  of  Isaiah  with  the  Great  Unknown  that  it  is  suffi¬ 
cient  to  quote  him : 

“  There  are  also  literary  features  of  a  more  general  character, 
which  differentiate  the  author  of  c.  40-66  from  Isaiah.  Isaiah’s 
style  is  terse  and  compact  :  the  movement  of  his  periods  is 
stately  and  measured;  his  rhetoric  is  grave  and  restrained. 
In  these  chapters  a  subject  is  often  developed  at  considerable 
length ;  the  style  is  much  more  flowing ;  the  rhetoric  is  warm 
and  impassioned,  and  the  prophet  often  bursts  out  into  a  lyric 
strain  (42,  10  f.  44,  23.  45,  8.  49,  13),  in  a  manner  to  which  even 
Isa.  12  affords  no  parallel.  Force  is  the  predominant  feature 
of  Isaiah’s  oratory;  persuasion  sits  upon  the  lips  of  the  prophet 
who  here  speaks ;  the  music  of  his  eloquence,  as  it  rolls  mag¬ 
nificently  along,  thrills  and  captivates  the  soul  of  its  hearer. 
So,  again,  if  the  most  conspicuous  characteristic  of  Isaiah’s 
imagination  be  grandeur ,  that  of  the  prophet  to  whom  we  are 
here  listening  is  pathos.  The  storms,  the  inundations,  the 
sudden  catastrophes  which  Isaiah  loves  to  depict  are  scarcely 
to  be  found  in  this  prophecy.  The  author’s  imagery  is  drawn 
by  preference  from  a  different  region  of  nature  altogether,  viz., 
from  the  animate  world,  in  particular  from  the  sphere  of 
human  emotion.  It  is  largely  the  figures  drawn  from  the 
latter  which  impart  to  his  prophecy  its  peculiar  pathos  and 
warmth  (see  49,  15.  18.  61,  10b.  62,  5.  66,  13).  His  fondness 
for  such  figures  is,  however,  most  evident  in  the  numerous 
examples  of  personification  which  his  prophecy  contains. 
Since  Amos  (5,  2)  it  became  habitual  with  the  prophets  to  per¬ 
sonify  a  city  or  community  as  a  maiden ,  especially  where  it 
was  desired  to  represent  it  as  vividly  conscious  of  some  keen 
emotion.  This  figure  is  applied  in  these  chapters  with  remark¬ 
able  independence  and  originality.  Zion  is  represented  as  a 
widow,  a  mother,  a  bride,  i.e.,  under  just  those  relations  of  life 
in  which  the  deepest  feelings  of  humanity  come  into  play;  and 


138 


THE  DEFENCE  OF  PROFESSOR  BRIGGS 


the  personification  is  continued  sometimes  through  a  long  series 
of  verses.  Nor  is  this  all.  The  prophet  personifies  nature: 
he  bids  heaven  and  earth  shout  at  the  restoration  of  God’s  peo¬ 
ple  (44,  23.  49,  13;  cf.  52,  9.  55,  12);  he  hears  in  imagination 
the  voice  of  invisible  beings  sounding  across  the  desert  (40,  3. 
6.  57,  14);  he  peoples  Jerusalem  with  ideal  watchmen  (52,  8) 
and  guardians  (62,  6).  Akin  to  these  personifications  is  the 
dramatic  character  of  the  representation,  which  also  prevails 
to  a  remarkable  extent  in  the  prophecy  (see  40,  3  ff.  49,  1  ff. 
50,  4-9.  53,  1  ff.  58,  3a.  61,  10  f.  63,  1-6).” 

111. — The  Argument  f  rom  Biblical  Theology 

The  theology  of  the  Great  Unknown  is  so  far  above  the  theology 
of  Isaiah  that  it  is  difficult  to  see  how  any  who  compares  them 
can  doubt  that  there  has  been  a  great  theological  development 
in  the  interval  between  them.  I  shall  present  a  few  specimens. 

(1)  The  doctrine  of  God  in  the  Great  Unknown  is  even  more 
exalted  than  in  the  book  of  Job.  Any  one  who  can  believe 
that  Job  was  written  by  Moses  might  also  believe  that  the 
great  prophecy  we  are  considering  was  written  by  Isaiah,  but 
it  is  impossible  for  a  man  who  knows  that  Job  was  not  written 
earlier  than  the  age  of  Josiah  to  suppose  that  the  Great 
Unknown  was  written  earlier  than  the  age  of  Josiah.  (a) 
The  Great  Unknown  emphasizes  the  doctrine  that  Yahweh  is 
the  only  God  in  a  heaping  up  of  expressions  of  great  variety : 

“Thus  saith  Yahweh,  the  King  of  Israel,  and  his  redeemer  Yahweh 
Sabaotli :  I  am  the  first,  and  I  am  the  last ;  and  beside  me  there  is  no 
(tod.  ...  Is  there  a  God  beside  me?  yea,  there  is  no  Rock  ;  I  know 
not  any”  (xliv.  6,  8  b). 

“I  am  Yahweh,  and  there  is  none  else ;  beside  me  there  is  no  God: 
I  will  gird  thee,  though  thou  hast  not  known  me  :  that  they  may  know 
from  the  rising  of  the  sun,  and  from  the  west,  that  there  is  none  beside 
me :  I  am  Yahweh,  and  there  is  none  else”  (xlv.  5,  6) . 

“  Surely  God  is  in  thee  ;  and  there  is  none  else  ;  there  is  no  God.  Verily 
thou  art  a  God  that  liidest  thyself,  O  God  of  Israel,  the  Saviour.  .  .  .  And 
there  is  no  God  else  beside  me :  a  just  God  and  a  Saviour ;  there  is  none 
beside  me.  Look  unto  me,  and  be  ye  saved,  all  the  ends  of  the  earth: 
for  I  am  God,  and  there  is  none  else  ”  (xlv.  14  b,  15,  21  b,  22). 

“  Neither  hath  the  eye  seen  a  God  beside  thee  ”  (lxiv.  4  b) . 


WHO  WROTE  ISAIAH? 


139 


This  doctrine  was  appropriate  for  an  exilic  prophet  brought 
face  to  face  with  the  religions  of  the  great  nations  of  the 
Euphrates.  But  Isaiah  has  no  such  statements.  They  were 
not  needed  in  his  time.  He  had  to  emphasize  the  majesty  and 
sanctity  of  God. 

(b)  The  Great  Unknown  emphasizes  the  doctrine  that  Yah- 
weh  was  “the  first”  and  Yahweh  was  “the  last,”  and  that  He 
was  “the  same:”  “I  Yahweh  the  first,  and  with  the  last,  I  am 
the  same”  (xli.  4  b).  “I  am  the  first,  and  I  am  the  last;  and 
beside  me  there  is  no  God”  (xliv.  6  b).  “I  am  the  same;  I 
am  the  first,  I  also  am  the  last  ”  (xlviii.  12  b). 

These  expressions  have  nothing  to  correspond  with  them  in 
Isaiah. 

(c)  The  doctrine  of  the  divine  Spirit  in  Isaiah  is  still  the 
ancient  doctrine.  It  was  to  be  poured  on  the  Messianic  King  to 
endow  Him  with  the  sevenfold  endowment  for  His  reign  of 
peace  (Is.  xi.  2).  It  was  to  be  poured  on  the  land  to  trans¬ 
form  it  from  a  wilderness  to  a  garden  (Is.  xxxii.  15),  and  with¬ 
out  guidance  by  the  divine  Spirit  apostate  children  add  sin 
to  sin  (Is.  xxx.  1) ;  but  in  the  Great  Unknown  the  doctrine 
reaches  a  height  which  has  no  parallel  except  in  the  late  139th 
Psalm.  The  divine  Spirit  endows  the  Messianic  Servant  in 
xlii.  1;  lxi.  1;  and  will  revive  the  nation,  xliv.  3;  it  accom¬ 
panies  the  ministry  of  the  prophets,  xlviii.  16.  But  in  chapter 
lxiii.  10,  the  Spirit  is  named  the  Holy  Spirit,  an  epithet  used 
elsewhere  in  the  Old  Testament  only  in  Psalm  li.  13.  It  is  per¬ 
sonified  beyond  any  other  passage  in  the  Old  Testament.  It 
is  represented  that  He  was  grieved  by  the  rebellion  of  the 
Israelites  in  the  wilderness,  that  He  led  them  in  their  journeys 
to  the  Holy  Land,  and  that  He  was  in  the  midst  of  them. 
Thus  the  Holy  Spirit  is  assigned  the  work  of  the  theophanic 
angel  of  the  historical  narrative  of  JE,  and  especially  as 
bearing  with  Him  the  divine  face  or  presence  as  in  the  docu¬ 
ment  J.  The  Holy  Spirit  is  associated  with  the  theophanic 
angel  here,  just  as  in  the  book  of  wisdom,  Proverbs,  1st  chapter, 
the  divine  Spirit  and  the  divine  Wisdom  are  associated.  This 
conception  of  the  divine  Spirit  shows  a  marked  advance  not 
only  beyond  Isaiah,  but  also  beyond  Ezekiel. 

(d)  The  doctrine  of  creation  in  Isaiah  is  confined  to  a  use  of 


140 


THE  DEFENCE  OF  PROFESSOR  BRIGGS 


the  verb  in  Isaiah  xvii.  7,  where  God  is  represented  as  the 
Maker  of  man ;  n-o  is  used  in  Isaiah  iv.  5  with  reference  to  the 
cloud  and  fire  which  are  to  protect  redeemed  Jerusalem.  But 
the  doctrine  of  creation  is  one  of  the  most  characteristic  doc¬ 
trines  of  the  Great  Unknown.  He  heaps  up  terms  and  de¬ 
scriptive  epithets  to  set  it  forth  in  xl.  12  f,  26-28;  xlii.  5;  xliii. 
7,  21;  xliv.  2,  21,  24;  xlv.  7,  9-11,  12,  18;  xlviii.  13;  xlix. 
5;  li.  13;  liv.  16;  lvii.  16,  19.  In  his  doctrine  he  tran¬ 
scends  every  pre-exilic  writer.  The  late  word  is  used  by  the 
Great  Unknown  twenty  times.  Uo  other  writer  can  compare 
with  this. 

(2)  In  the  doctrine  of  redemption,  a  more  spiritual  conception 
pervades  the  Great  Unknown  than  any  pre-exilic  writer.  Yah- 
weh  often  names  himself  or  is  called  “Saviour”  (xliii.  3,  11; 
xlv.  15,  21;  xlix.  26;  lx.  16;  lxiii.  8)  and  “Redeemer”  (xli. 
14;  xliii.  14;  xliv.  6,  24;  xlvii.  4;  xlviii.  17;  xlix.  7,  26;  liv. 
5,  8;  lix.  20;  lx.  16;  lxiii.  16) — phrases  unknown  to  Isaiah. 

The  verb  Sxj  is  not  in  Isaiah  at  all,  but  is  found  in  the  Great 
Unknown.  God’s  people  are  “redeemed”  Is.  li.  10; 

lxii.  12;  lxiii.  4;  an  expression  found  elsewhere  only  in  Is. 
xxxv.  9,  which  also  is  exilic  as  we  shall  see,  and  Ps.  cvii.  2. 
The  doctrine  of  salvation  is  sung  with  every  variety  of  the 
sweetest  expressions  that  the  poet  can  conceive  of,  to  such  an 
extent  that  this  prophecy  is  recognized  as  the  gospel  in  the 
Old  Testament.  The  conception  of  redemption  in  Is.  lvii.  15 
and  lxvi.  1,  2  is  unspeakably  sublime: 

“For  thus  saith  the  high  and  lofty  One  that  inhabiteth  eternity,  whose 
name  is  Holy :  I  dwell  in  the  high  and  holy  place,  witli  him  also  that  is 
of  a  contrite  and  humble  spirit  to  revive  the  spirit  of  the  humble,  and 
to  revive  the  heart  of  the  contrite  ones.  ” 

“  Thus  saith  Yahweh,  The  heaven  is  my  throne,  and  the  earth  is  my 
footstool :  what  manner  of  house  will  ye  build  unto  me?  and  what  place 
shall  be  my  rest?  For  all  these  things  hath  mine  hand  made,  and  so  all 
these  things  came  to  be,  saith  Yahweh :  but  to  this  man  will  I  look,  even 
to  him  that  is  poor  and  of  a  contrite  spirit,  and  that  trembleth  at  my 
word.  ” 

This  doctrine  is  divine  and  not  human.  It  could  hardly  have 
been  conceived  prior  to  the  experience  of  Israel  in  exile  when 
they  were  excluded  from  sacred  places  and  ceremonial  religion, 


WHO  WROTE  ISAIAH? 


141 


and  were  compelled  to  a  spiritual  religion.  These  passages  are 
re-echoed  in  the  51st  Psalm. 

(3)  In  the  Messianic  idea  the  Great  Unknown  advances  far 
beyond  Isaiah,  Jeremiah,  and  even  Ezekiel.  These  are  all  pre¬ 
supposed  in  his  great  prophecy,  as  I  have  shown  in  the  chapters 
devoted  to  the  subject  in  my  “  Messianic  Prophecy.” 

(a)  The  most  characteristic  feature  of  this  Messianic  proph¬ 
ecy  is  the  servant  of  Jahveh  and  especially  of  the  suffering 
Servant.  Let  me  repeat  from  my  “  Messianic  Prophecy.”  The 
exile  was  a  bitter  experience  for  the  pious  Israelite.  It  tran¬ 
scended  the  woes  of  the  Egyptian  bondage.  For  then  the  Holy 
Land  was  a  bright  prospect  that  had  not  yet  been  attained ;  but 
now  the  Holy  Land  had  been  lost  through  the  sin  and  folly  of 
the  people  of  God.  The  pious  keenly  felt  that  they  were 
deprived  of  blessings  which  they  ought  to  have  inherited.  They 
needed  redemption  of  sin  even  more  than  deliverance  from 
oppressors.  The  pious  were  indeed  the  greatest  sufferers,  for 
they  shared  in  the  persecution  to  which  Jeremiah  and  others 
like-minded  had  been  subjected  by  the  wicked  princes  and 
their  followers  among  the  people.  Piety  was  now  synonymous 
with  affliction  and  sorrow.  The  ideal  of  the  suffering  Messiah 
had  its  genesis  in  these  circumstances,  and  yet  it  was  not  with¬ 
out  connection  with  earlier  Messianic  prophecies.  The  ideal 
man  of  the  poem  of  the  creation  and  of  the  codes  of  the  Penta¬ 
teuch  had  not  been  realized  in  the  experience  of  Israel  or  man¬ 
kind.  The  curses  were  earned  and  the  blessings  were  forfeited. 
The  problem  of  redemption  was  no  longer  simply  the  education 
of  the  race  for  its  attainment  of  the  divine  ideal,  or  the  training 
of  Israel  in  the  sacred  institutions  of  redemption ;  but  first  of 
all  they  must  be  delivered  from  the  curse  of  sin  and  the  penal¬ 
ties  of  broken  covenants  and  vows.  The  problem  of  redemption 
became  complicated  owing  to  the  fact  that  not  only  did  the  sinner 
suffer  for  his  evil  deeds,  but  the  righteous  man  who  strove  to 
serve  God,  to  attain  the  divine  ideal,  and  to  gain  the  promised 
blessings,  increased  his  sufferings  and  sorrows  thereby.  He 
separated  himself  from  his  evil  surroundings  only  to  incur 
enmity  and  persecution.  He  suffered  no  longer  for  sin,  but  for 
righteousness’  sake.  Ideal  manhood  is  to  be  gained  only 
through  the  real  manhood  of  fortitude,  perseverance,  and  the 


142 


THE  DEFENCE  OF  PROFESSOR  BRIGGS 


patient  endurance  of  persecutions  even  unto  death.  This  con¬ 
ception  is  found  in  germ  in  the  protevangelium .  The  conflict 
with  Satan  and  the  forces  of  evil  was  accompanied  with  peril, 
and  the  victory  was  to  be  gained  only  through  suffering.  It  is 
also  contained  in  the  covenants  with  Abraham  and  David. 
What  Egypt  was  to  the  seed  of  Abraham,  that  the  exile 
became  to  the  seed  of  Abraham,  David,  and  the  children  of  Israel  . 
The  wilderness  was  the  way  to  the  Holy  Land  of  redemption, 
and  the  entrance  was  through  the  vale  of  tribulation.  But  the 
circumstances  of  the  exile,  and  especially  the  experience  of  the 
persecuted  Jeremiah  and  his  associates,  taught  the  people  of 
God  lessons  they  had  never  learned  before.  The  sufferings  of 
the  nation  in  exile  were  to  discharge  the  penalties  of  its  trans¬ 
gressions,  but  were  not  to  result  in  ultimate  ruin.  The  nation 
had  indeed  died,  but  it  was  to  rise  again  in  a  great  resurrection. 
The  faithful  prophets,  the  teachers  of  the  nation,  are  not  to 
suffer  persecution  and  death  in  vain;  they  are  to  earn  and 
receive  the  rewards  of  their  faithfulness.  There  are  several 
psalms  of  the  exile  that  present  to  our  view  a  great  sufferer  who 
can  hardly  be  any  other  than  the  Messiah.  It  seems  probable 
that  Jeremiah  was  the  type  of  the  great  sufferer,  for  he  was 
the  hero  of  the  exiles,  the  great  historical  sufferer  for  God.  But 
even  this  prince  of  sufferers  does  not  attain  the  heights  of  the 
ideal  of  these  psalms.  He  is  the  basis  of  the  representation, 
but  the  divine  Spirit  guided  the  psalmists  to  discern  and  describe 
a  sufferer  whose  experience  was  vastly  more  bitter  than  that  of 
Jeremiah,  and  whose  sufferings  were  rewarded  with  a  redemp¬ 
tion  which  Jeremiah  did  not  gain  (pp.  320-322). 

On  the  basis  of  this  suffering  the  great  prophet  of  the  exile 
constructs  his  image  of  the  servant  of  Yahweh. 

In  Is.  61  the  idea  of  the  servant  of  Yahweh  reaches  its  cli¬ 
max.  It  was  not  without  reason  that  the  Messiah  recognized 
Himself  more  distinctly  in  this  picture,  and  employed  it  in  His 
discourse  in  the  synagogue  of  Nazareth  to  explain  His  mission 
to  His  unbelieving  kindred  and  townsmen,  for  here  we  see  the 
Messiah  preaching  the  gospel  of  redemption  that  he  has  already 
achieved,  enjoying  the  fruits  of  his  ministry,  and  rejoicing  in 
the  accomplishment  of  his  work.  He  is  anointed  with  the  di¬ 
vine  Spirit,  as  in  the  first  passage,  Is.  xlii. ,  and  becomes  a  gentle 


WHO  WROTE  ISAIAH? 


143 


preacher.  There  he  was  unostentatious  and  meek  in  his  entire 
work,  not  breaking  off  the  broken  reed  or  putting  out  the  faint 
wick,  but  yet  releasing  the  captives.  Here  he  has  the  same 
work,  but  as  he  describes  his  own  mission  and  work  he 
enlarges  upon  this  feature  of  it,  and  we  see  him  binding  up  the 
broken-hearted,  comforting  mourners,  giving  them  festal  robes 
instead  of  the  ashes  and  sackcloth  of  humiliation  and  mourn¬ 
ing.  There  he  was  the  light  of  the  nations,  as  well  as  the  cove¬ 
nant  of  Israel.  This  feature  was  enlarged  in  the  second  repre¬ 
sentation  (xlix.  1-7).  He  raises  up  the  tribes  of  Jacob,  re¬ 
stores  them  to  their  own  land,  and  becomes  salvation  to  the 
ends  of  the  earth.  Here  this  is  still  further  enlarged.  The  re¬ 
deemed  become  like  terebinths  of  righteousness,  they  build  the 
wastes  of  Judah  and  Jerusalem,  they  become  the  priests  of  the 
nations,  and  the  nations  become  their  servants.  Thus  they  real¬ 
ize  their  original  ideal  as  set  forth  in  the  covenant  of  Horeb. 
They  are  recognized  by  the  nations  as  the  seed  that  enjoy  the 
blessing  of  Yahweh,  and  thus  attain  the  Abrahamic  covenant. 
They  enjoy  the  new  covenant  with  its  everlasting  joy  and  pros¬ 
perity,  which  is  now  familiar  to  us  from  the  representations  of 
Jeremiah,  Ezekiel,  and  the  Great  Unknown  himself.  This 
prophecy  thus  sums  up  in  itself,  and  enlarges  upon  all  the  previ¬ 
ous  descriptions  of  the  servant,  with  the  exception  of  those  relat¬ 
ing  to  the  suffering  substitute.  That  picture  presented  fully  the 
servant’s  condition  of  humiliation.  It  mentioned  the  servant’s 
exaltation  only  at  the  beginning  and  at  the  conclusion. 
That  which  was  left  undeveloped  there  is  here  the  subject  of 
the  picture.  The  servant  is  here  not  engaged  in  the  work  of 
substitution  and  interposition,  but  he  is  employed  in  proclaim¬ 
ing  the  results  of  it,  and  in  applying  the  fruits  of  it,  in  the 
preaching  of  the  gospel  of  redemption  to  the  poor  and  miserable. 
The  sin -bearing  servant  needs  as  his  counterpart  the  joyful 
preacher  of  the  glad  tidings  of  a  redemption  that  has  been 
accomplished.  The  servant  no  longer  bears  the  name  of  ser¬ 
vant,  he  is  preparing  the  poor  and  sorrowful  for  the  festival  of 
redemption  of  the  year  of  grace.  It  is  most  fitting,  therefore, 
that  the  prophecy  should  conclude  with  a  song  of  joy  in  the 
mouth  of  the  great  preacher.  He  has  accomplished  his  mis¬ 
sion,  and  is  entitled  to  its  rewards,  and  the  saddest  of  all  sor- 


144 


THE  DEFENCE  OF  PROFESSOR  BRIGGS 


rows  has  been  transformed  into  the  purest  and  loftiest  joy  (pp. 
371-373). 

The  prediction  of  the  suffering  Messiah  stands  out  most 
naturally  upon  the  background  of  the  exile.  The  royal  Messiah, 
the  prince  of  peace,  appears  in  the  frame  of  the  age  of  Isaiah. 
The  Messianic  servant  is  as  appropriate  to  the  exile  as  the 
Messianic  king  to  the  reign  of  Hezekiah.  We  cannot  trans¬ 
pose  them  or  put  them  side  by  side  in  the  same  author  and  the 
same  period  without  impairing  their  historic  value  and  their 
predictive  verisimilitude. 

( b )  The  second  most  prominent  feature  in  this  great  prophecy 
is  the  comfort  given  to  Zion,  who  is  personified  and  represented 
as  the  wife  and  mother  of  its  inhabitants.  It  is  easy  to  show 
that  this  representation  presupposes  the  book  of  comfort  of 
Jeremiah  30,  31  and  the  predictions  of  Zephaniah  and  Ezekiel  as 
well  as  of  Hosea,  and  that  it  transcends  them  all  in  its  exhibi¬ 
tions  of  the  tenderness  of  the  marital  relation  between  Zion  and 
Yahweh  and  of  the  beauty  and  glory  of  the  new  Jerusalem. 
Take  for  example : 

“  And  the  foreigners  who  join  themselves  unto  Yahweh  to  minister  to  him, 

And  to  love  the  name  of  Yahweh,  to  become  servants  unto  him, 

Every  one  keeping  the  Sabbath  from  polluting  it,  and  those  who  are 
firm  in  my  covenant, 

I  will  bring  them  unto  my  holy  mountain,  and  I  will  make  them  rejoice 
in  my  house  of  prayer  ; 

Their  burnt-offerings  and  their  peace-offerings  will  be  for  acceptance 
upon  mine  altar, 

For  my  house  will  be  proclaimed  a  house  of  prayer  for  all  peoples.” 

— Isa.  lvi.  6,  7. 

This  passage  is  the  most  advanced  of  all  those  that  we  have 
met,  relating  to  the  share  of  the  nations  in  the  redemption  of 
Israel.  Isaiah  predicts  that  Egypt  will  serve  Yahweh  with 
peace-offerings,  vegetable-offerings  and  votive-offerings  (xix. 
21) ;  and  in  Zephaniah  the  Cushites  bring  incense-offerings  and 
the  Lib3Tans  vegetable-offerings  (iii.  10).  So  here  foreigners  in 
general  will  bring  burnt-offerings  and  peace-offerings  to  the  di¬ 
vine  altar  and  find  acceptance.  The  temple  is  no  longer  a  merely 
Jewish  temple,  it  has  become  a  universal  temple.  As  such  it 
is  more  than  a  place  of  sacrifice,  it  is  a  place  of  prayer.  The 


WHO  WROTE  ISAIAH? 


145 


prophet  rises  above  the  conception  of  Ezekiel  to  the  idea  of  a  uni¬ 
versal  religion.  The  sacrifices  are  still  here,  for  the  Old  Testa¬ 
ment  point  of  view  cannot  yet  be  abandoned ;  but  the  sacrifices 
are  in  the  background.  As  the  qualifications  for  participation 
in  the  blessings  of  redemption  are  no  longer  national,  but  coven¬ 
ant-keeping  and  Sabbath  observance,  conditions  that  all  nations 
might  fulfil,  so  the  most  significant  feature  of  the  new  worship 
is  prayer,  and  the  world-wide  name  of  the  temple  of  Yahweh 
will  be  house  of  prayer  for  all  peoples  (“  Mess.  Proph.,”  p.  392). 

IV. — The  Historical  Situation 

The  argument  from  the  historical  situation  is  so  well  stated 
by  Canon  Driver  that  I  shall  again  venture  to  quote  him : 

“  Three  independent  lines  of  argument  converge  to  show  that 
this  prophecy  is  not  the  work  of  Isaiah,  but,  like  13,  2-14,  23, 
has  for  its  author  a  prophet  writing  toward  the  close  of  the 
Babylonian  captivity.  (1)  The  internal  evidence  supplied  by 
the  prophecy  itself  points  to  this  period  as  that  at  which  it  was 
written.  It  alludes  repeatedly  to  Jerusalem  as  ruined  and 
deserted  ( e.g .  44,  26b.  58,  12.  61,  4.  63,  18.  64,  10  f.);  to  the 
sufferings  which  the  Jews  have  experienced,  or  are  experiencing, 
at  the  hands  of  the  Chaldseans  (42,  22.  25.  43,  28.  [R.  Y.  marg. J 
47,  6.  52,  5) ;  to  the  prospect  of  return,  which,  as  the  prophet 
speaks,  is  imminent  (40,  2.  46,  13.  48,  20,  etc.).  Those  whom 
the  prophet  addresses,  and,  moreover,  addresses  in  person — 
arguing  with  them,  appealing  to  them  striving  to  win  their 
assent  by  his  warm  and  impassioned  rhetoric  (40,  21.  26.  28. 
43,  10.  48,  8.  50,  10  f.  51,  6.  12  f.  58,  3  ff.,  etc.) — are  not  the 
men  of  Jerusalem,  contemporaries  of  Ahaz  and  Hekeziah,  or 
even  of  Manasseh;  they  are  the  exiles  in  Babylonia.  Judged 
by  the  analogy  of  prophecy ,  this  constitutes  the  strongest 
possible  presumption  that  the  author  actually  lived  in  the 
period  which  he  thus  describes,  and  is  not  merely  (as  has  been 
supposed)  Isaiah  immersed  in  spirit  in  the  future,  and  holding 
converse,  as  it  were,  with  the  generations  yet  unborn.  Such 
an  immersion  in  the  future  would  be  not  only  without  paral¬ 
lel  in  the  O.T.,  it  would  be  contrary  to  the  nature  of  proph¬ 
ecy.  The  prophet  speaks  always,  in  the  first  instance,  to  his 
10 


146 


THE  DEFENCE  OF  PROFESSOR  BRIGGS 


own  contemporaries ;  the  message  which  he  brings  is  intimately 
related  with  the  circumstances  of  his  time :  his  promises  and 
predictions,  however  far  they  reach  into  the  future,  never¬ 
theless  rest  upon  the  basis  of  the  history  of  his  own  age,  and 
correspond  to  the  needs  which  are  then  felt.  The  prophet  never 
abandons  his  own  historical  position,  but  speaks  from  it.  So 
Jeremiah  and  Ezekiel,  for  instance,  predict  first  the  exile, 
then  the  restoration;  both  are  contemplated  by  them  as  still 
future ;  both  are  viewed  from  the  period  in  which  they  them¬ 
selves  live.  In  the  present  prophecy  there  is  no  prediction  of 
exile;  the  exile  is  not  announced  as  something  still  future:  it 
is  presupposed ,  and  only  the  release  from  it  is  predicted.  By 
analogy,  therefore,  the  author  will  have  lived  in  the  situation 
which  he  thus  presupposes,  and  to  which  he  continually  alludes  ” 
(“ Lit.  of  O.  T.,”  pp.  223,  224). 

To  these  words  of  Driver  let  me  add  the  following : 

This  wondrous  prophecy,  as  it  has  expanded  in  three  suc¬ 
cessive  editions,  finds  its  only  appropriate  historical  situation 
in  the  exile.  Looking  forward  from  thence  it  builds  on  all  the 
previous  prophets,  and  transcends  them  all  in  the  bulk  and 
grandeur  of  its  representations.  It  is  related  to  the  book  of 
Ezekiel  as  the  inner  to  the  outer;  as  the  essential  spirit  and 
substance  to  its  formal  envelope.  It  seems  to  me  that  Ezekiel 
could  never  have  written  his  apocalypse  if  he  had  seen  or  heard 
of  the  doctrines  of  Isa.  xl.-lxvi.  It  is  indeed  not  at  all  strange 
that  some  Jewish  rabbins  and  some  modern  scholars  have 
doubted  the  inspiration  of  Ezekiel,  who  differs  so  greatly  from 
the  Mosaic  codes  on  the  one  side  and  from  Isa.  xl.-lxvi.  on  the 
other.  The  difficulty  is  resolved  only  when  we  see  that  Ezekiel 
stands  on  a  lower  stage  in  the  development  of  the  Messianic 
idea  than  the  Great  Unknown,  who  had  Ezekiel  and  Jeremiah, 
the  exile  and  the  body  of  ancient  prophecy  behind  him;  and 
thus  could  grasp  the  whole  doctrine  of  his  predecessors,  and 
rise  from  it  to  greater  heights  of  prediction  (“Mess.  Propli.,” 
pp.  408,  409). 

We  have  now  gone  over  the  argument  from  the  book  of  Isaiah 
itself  and  have  seen  that  the  great  prophecy  in  the  last  twenty- 
seven  chapters  is  from  a  great  unknown  prophet  writing  during 
the  exile. 


WHO  WROTE  ISAIAH? 


147 


V. — The  Testimony  of  the  Neiv  Testament 

We  are  confronted  by  testimony  from  the  New  Testament 
presented  by  the  prosecution.  We  have  already  considered 
under  the  previous  Charge  the  principles  which  should  deter¬ 
mine  the  evidence  to  be  derived  from  the  use  of  the  Old  Testa¬ 
ment  in  the  New  Testament.  We  have  only  to  consider  the 
passages  themselves.  There  are  six  of  them.  None  of  them 
give  the  words  of  Jesus.  Two  are  the  words  of  the  evangelist 
Matthew,  two  give  the  words  of  Luke,  one  the  testimony  of 
John,  and  one  of  Paul.  The  passages  referred  to  in  the  book 
of  Isaiah  are  chapters  vi.  9,  10;  ix.  1,  2  of  the  earlier  collec¬ 
tion,  and  five  well-known  passages  of  the  great  prophecy  of  the 
exile,  namely,  xl.  3-5;  xlii.  1-3;  liii.  1;  lxi.  1,  2;  Ixv.  1,  2.  The 
two  passages  from  the  earlier  collection  are  not  in  question, 
because  I  do  not  deny  that  Isaiah  wrote  them ;  but  only  those 
from  chapters  xl.-lxvi.  If  these  New  Testament  writers  testify 
that  Isaiah  wrote  these  passages,  then  the  testimony  of  the  New 
Testament  is  against  the  opinion  that  I  have  expressed  that 
Isaiah  did  not  write  half  of  the  book  that  bears  his  name ;  but 
these  writers  testify  no  such  thing.  Their  language  is  pre¬ 
cisely  the  same  in  form  as  that  we  have  considered  in  connec¬ 
tion  with  similar  passages  relating  to  the  Pentateuch.  In  the 
original  specification  we  find  a  reference  to  “  the  roll  of  the 
prophet  Isaiah”  of  Luke  iv.  17,  18,  which  Jesus  took  when  He 
expounded  the  61st  chapter  from  it.  This  has  been  omitted 
from  the  Amended  Specification.  It  certainly  does  not  imply 
any  more  than  that  it  was  the  roll  which  bore  the  name  of  the 
prophet  Isaiah.  We  may  interpret  in  several  ways :  either  that 
Isaiah  wrote  it  all,  as  the  prosecution  hold,  or  that  he  wrote  the 
earlier  portions  of  it,  and  so  the  prophecies  appended  by  later 
editors  to  the  book  did  not  change  its  name;  or  that  it  came 
down  by  tradition  associated  with  the  name  of  Isaiah,  having 
been  edited  under  his  name  when  the  second  canon  was  estab¬ 
lished.  It  no  more  implies  authorship  than  the  book  of  Ruth 
or  the  book  of  Esther  imply  authorship  by  Ruth  or  Esther. 

“The  book  of  the  words  of  Isaiah  the  prophet”  (Luke  iii.  4) 
is  only  an  enlargement  of  the  previous  phrase  by  the  insertion 
of  the  term  “  words ;  ”  but  it  does  not  prove  authorship  any 


148 


THE  DEFENCE  OF  PROFESSOR  BRIGGS 


more  than  the  previous  phrase.  It  may  be  explained  in  the 
same  way. 

“Spoken  through  Isaiah  the  prophet,”  of  Matthew  xii.  17; 
“word  of  Isaiah  the  prophet,”  of  John  xii.  38;  “Isaiah  said,” 
John  xii.  41;  “Isaiah  saith,”  Rom.  x.  16,  20,  do  not  imply  any 
more  than  “  the  book  of  Isaiah  saith,”  “  spoken  through  the  book 
of  Isaiah,”  “  word  of  the  book  of  Isaiah,”  and  they  have  as  their 
exact  parallels,  “  All  the  prophets  from  Samuel  and  them  that 
followed  after,  as  many  as  have  spoken  they  also  told  of  these 
days,”  Acts  iii.  24. 

It  is  quite  possible  that  I  may  not  be  able  to  convince  this 
court  that  my  interpretation  of  these  references  to  the  book  of 
Isaiah  in  the  New  Testament  is  the  true  one,  and  that  you  may 
prefer  the  interpretation  which  the  prosecution  put  upon  these 
words.  But  have  you  any  right  to  force  your  interpretation 
upon  me?  No  Church  in  Christendom  has  decided  the  inter¬ 
pretation  of  these  passages.  There  is  no  interpretation  given 
of  them  in  the  Westminster  Standards.  You  have  your  right 
of  free  interpretation  under  our  Constitution.  I  also  have  my 
right  which  you  cannot  legally  take  from  me,  unless  you  can 
put  your  interpretation  into  our  Constitution  by  the  lawful 
process  of  revision.  I  am  within  my  rights  in  giving  you  the 
interpretation  I  have  given.  But  this  is  not  all  I  have  given. 
I  have  shown  you  that  you  cannot  take  the  interpretation  of  the 
prosecution  without  bringing  these  five  passages  of  the  New 
Testament  into  conflict  with  the  weight  of  the  testimony  of  the 
Old  Testament  itself.  The  testimony  of  the  Old  Testament 
makes  it  altogether  probable  that  my  interpretation  of  these 
passages  is  the  true  one.  Our  Confession  gives  us  a  safe  rule 
to  follow  in  such  cases  of  apparent  difference : 

“  The  infallible  rule  of  interpretation  of  Scripture  is  the  Scripture  it¬ 
self  ;  and  therefore,  when  there  is  a  question  about  the  true  and  full  sense 
of  any  Scripture  (which  is  not  manifold  but  one),  it  may  be  searched 
and  known  by  other  places  that  speak  more  clearly  ”  (I,  9) . 

The  prosecution  put  this  rule  in  their  Charge,  but  they  made 
no  use  of  it  in  their  argument.  I  insist  upon  its  application  to 
the  matter  in  hand. 

You  must  follow  this  rule  recognized  by  the  prosecution  in 
this  Charge,  or  else  go  against  the  express  requirements  of  the 


WHO  WROTE  ISAIAH? 


149 


Confession.  This  rule  sustains  me  in  my  doctrine.  The  places 
that  speak  more  clearly  are  those  I  have  given  you  from  the 
Old  Testament.  The  passages  where  there  is  a  question  about 
“the  true  and  full  sense”  are  these  five  passages  from  the  New 
Testament  quoted  by  the  prosecution.  You  must  interpret 
them  by  the  clear  passages  of  the  Old  Testament.  Therefore 
you  should  acquit  me  and  pronounce  the  prosecution  in  error. 

Other  Anonymous  Prophecies  in  Isaiah 

I  might  rest  my  case  here,  were  it  not  that  I  said  that  Isaiah 
did  not  write  half  the  book  that  bears  his  name. 

I  have  thus  far  shown  that  Isaiah  did  not  write  thirty-one 
chapters  of  the  sixty-six  in  the  book  of  Isaiah.  It  is  necessary, 
therefore,  that  I  should  consider  the  remaining  thirty-five  chap¬ 
ters  in  order  to  establish  my  position.  I  am  here  confronted 
with  no  evidence  presented  by  the  prosecution.  I  have  only 
to  present  the  positive  arguments. 

(1)  Is.  xxiv.-xxvii.  is  one  of  the  finest  pieces  of  poetry  in  the 
Old  Testament.  It  is  composed  of  twelve  strophes  in  the 
hexameter  movement,  and  is  remarkable  for  its  alliteration, 
rhyme,  and  play  upon  words ;  in  all  these  respects  transcending 
every  other  piece  of  Hebrew  poetry.  Its  doctrines  of  the  divine 
judgment,  of  the  evil  angel  princes  and  their  imprisonment  in 
Sheol,  and  of  the  heavenly  elders,  its  prediction  of  the  abolition 
of  death  and  sorrow,  and  of  the  resurrection  of  Israel,  the 
corpse  of  Yahweh,  and  the  wide  extent  of  the  divine  judgment, 
have  nothing  to  correspond  with  them  in  Isaiah;  they  pre¬ 
suppose  Ezekiel  and  are  in  some  respects  nearer  to  the  Apoca¬ 
lypse  of  Daniel  than  to  any  other  writing  in  the  Old  Testament. 

(2)  Is.  xxxiv.,  xxxv. :  resembles  Is.  xl.-lxvi.  It  seems  to  be 
an  earlier  piece  of  the  same  author,  the  prelude  and  outline  of 
that  great  composition. 

(3)  Is.  xiii.,  xiv.  23,  is  a  beautiful  pentameter  poem,  predict¬ 
ing  the  destruction  of  Babylon  by  the  Medes  and  the  judgment 
of  the  world.  It  is  the  prelude  to  the  judgment  upon  Babylon 
by  Cyrus,  chaps,  xl.-xlviii.,  and  is  possibly  one  of  the  earlier 
predictions  referred  to  therein.  It  is  true  that  it  bears  the  title, 
“  The  message  to  Babylon  which  Isaiah,  the  son  of  Amoz ,  did 


150 


THE  DEFENCE  OF  PROFESSOR  BRIGGS 


see,”  but  the  very  form  of  expression  shows  that  this  title  does 
not  come  from  Isaiah,  but  from  the  compiler  of  this  collection, 
who  wrongly  attributes  it  to  Isaiah,  as  internal  evidence  shows. 
Like  the  titles  of  the  Psalms  it  is  not  entitled  to  the  attribute  of 
inspiration. 

This  prediction  was  placed  at  the  beginning  of  Isaiah’s  col¬ 
lection  of  messages  against  the  surrounding  nations,  fourteen 
in  number,  xiv.  24-xxiii.,  which  are  probably  Isaiah’s.  There 
is  also  a  group  of  woes  upon  Israel  and  Judah,  chaps,  xxviii.- 
xxxiii.,  which  may  be  attributed  to  Isaiah  also.  The  great  col¬ 
lection  of  Isaiah’s  prophecies  is,  however,  i.-xi.,  relating  to 
divine  judgments  upon  Judah  and  Israel.  There  were  two 
editings  of  this  group  by  Isaiah  or  his  disciples.  Chaps,  ii.-v. 
were  first  published,  and  then  the  larger  collection,  chaps,  vi.-xi., 
was  appended  and  chap.  i.  was  made  the  introduction  to  the 
whole.  Chap.  xii.  is  an  exilic  or  post-exilic  hymn,  as  Dr.  Fran¬ 
cis  Brown  has  shown,  resembling  the  little  hymns  in  the  Great 
Unknown.  It  was  doubtless  appended  to  the  first  collection  by 
the  post-exilic  final  editor,  who  thus  arranged  the  book  of  Isaiah 
in  a  pentateuch  of  Prophecy  as  follows : 

(1)  Chaps,  i.-xi.,  Isaiah’s,  to  which  the  exilic  hymn,  chap, 
xii.,  was  added. 

(2)  Chaps,  xiii.,  xiv.  23,  an  exilic  apocalypse,  was  prefixed  to 
a  collection  of  fourteen  messages  of  Isaiah  xiv.  24-xxiii.,  and  the 
exilic  apocalypse,  xxiv.-xxvii.,  was  given  as  the  conclusion  of 
this  section. 

(3)  Chaps,  xxviii.-xxxiii.,  a  collection  of  woes  by  Isaiah, 
to  which  was  joined  as  an  appendix  an  exilic  apocalypse  in 
chaps,  xxxiv.,  xxxv. 

(4)  The  exilic  historic  section,  xxxvi.-xxxix. 

(5)  The  prophecy  of  the  Great  Unknown,  xl.-lxvi. 

Thus  of  the  sixty-six  chapters  we  may  attribute  to  Isaiah  not 
more  than  twenty-seven  chapters.  Thirty-nine  chapters,  mak¬ 
ing  the  larger  half  of  the  book,  were  not  written  by  him,  as  all 
critics  acknowledge.  My  thesis  is  therefore  proven,  that  Isaiah 
did  not  write  half  of  the  book  that  bears  his  name. 

Let  me  sum  up  my  arguments  on  the  Charges  IV.  and  V. 

(1)  There  is  no  lawful  bridge  by  which  these  specifications, 


PROGRESSIVE  SANCTIFICATION  AFTER  DEATH 


151 


“  that  Moses  is  not  the  author  of  the  Pentateuch  and  that  Isaiah 
is  not  the  author  of  half  of  the  book  that  bears  his  name,”  can 
be  brought  under  the  Charges.  Therefore  there  is  no  relevancy 
in  the  specifications — they  cannot  be  accounted  as  valid. 

(2)  The  Westminster  Confession  of  Faith  nowhere  states 
that  Moses  wrote  the  Pentateuch  or  that  Isaiah  wrote  the  whole 
of  the  book  that  bears  his  name.  Therefore  there  can  be  no 
lawful  case  against  me  in  the  Presbyterian  Church. 

(3)  The  testimony  of  Holy  Scripture  in  the  passages  adduced 
does  not  show  that  Moses  wrote  the  Pentateuch  and  that  Isaiah 
wrote  the  book  that  bears  his  name.  Therefore  my  statements 
are  not  in  conflrct  with  Holy  Scripture  and  there  is  no  valid  case 
against  me  on  the  ground  of  Holy  Scripture. 

(4)  Holy  Scripture  makes  it  evident  that  Moses  did  not  write 
the  Pentateuch  and  that  Isaiah  did  not  write  half  of  the  book 
that  bears  his  name.  Therefore  my  statements  are  true  and  the 
prosecution  are  in  conflict  with  Holy  Scripture. 

In  the  fear  of  God  and  in  the  light  of  the  evidence  you 
should  decide.  You  cannot  decide  on  the  basis  of  your  opinions 
and  prejudices,  without  violating  the  laws  of  the  Church  and 
the  law  of  God. 


VIII 

PROGRESSIVE  SANCTIFICATION  AFTER  DEATH 

Charge  VI. : 

“  The  Presbyterian  Church  in  the  United  States  of  America 
charges  the  Rev.  Charles  A.  Briggs,  D.D.,  being  a  Minister  of 
the  said  Church  and  a  member  of  the  Presbytery  of  New  York, 
with  teaching  that  Sanctification  is  not  complete  at  death, 
which  is  contrary  to  the  essential  doctrine  of  Holy  Scripture  and 
of  the  Standards  of  the  said  Church  that  the  souls  of  believers 
are  at  their  death  at  once  made  perfect  in  holiness.” 

This  Charge  states  (1)  that  it  is  an  essential  doctrine  of  Holy 
Scripture  and  of  the  Standards  “  that  the  souls  of  believers  are 
at  their  death  at  once  made  perfect  in  holiness.”  But  no  proof 
is  offered  for  this  essential  doctrine  under  the  charge.  We 
shall  consider  whether  there  is  any  proof  for  it  whatever  in 


152 


THE  DEFENCE  OF  PROFESSOR  BRIGGS 


Holy  Scripture  and  the  Standards.  (2)  The  Charge  states  that 
Dr.  Briggs  teaches  “that  Sanctification  is  not  complete  at 
death.”  This  I  may  accept  as  a  fairly  good  statement  of  my 
doctrine.  (3)  The  Charge  states  that  my  doctrine  is  contrary 
to  the  essential  doctrine  of  Holy  Scripture  and  of  the  Standards. 
This  statement  we  shall  have  to  consider.  But  let  me  warn  the 
court  again  that  they  must  confine  themselves  to  the  question 
at  issue.  They  have  no  right  to  condemn  me  on  account  of 
any  other  doctrines  taught  in  the  citations  from  my  Inaugural, 
except  the  doctrine  attributed  to  me  in  the  Charge,  namely, 
“that  Sanctification  is  not  complete  at  death.”  My  doctrine 
is  clearly  stated  in  the  following  words  of  the  Inaugural  cited 
by  the  prosecution  as  part  of  their  specification : 

“There  is  no  authority  in  the  Scriptures,  or  in  the  creeds  of  Christen¬ 
dom,  for  the  doctrine  of  immediate  sanctification  at  death.  The  only 
sanctification  known  to  experience,  to  Christian  orthodoxy,  and  to  the 
Bible,  is  progressive  sanctification.  Progressive  sanctification  after  death 
is  the  doctrine  of  the  Bible  and  the  Church.  ” 

I. — The  Doctrine  of  the  Westminster  Standards 

It  is  claimed  by  the  adversaries  that  this  statement  is  against 
the  Westminster  Standards,  which  teach  “that  the  souls  of  be¬ 
lievers  are  at  their  death  at  once  made  perfect  in  holiness.” 
They  cite  from  the  Confession,  chapter  xxxii.  (1),  from  the 
Larger  Catechism,  Ques.  86,  and  from  the  Shorter  Catechism, 
Ques.  37.  But  Dr.  Birch  in  his  argument  made  no  use  what¬ 
ever  of  these  passages  from  our  Standards ;  and  Mr.  McCook 
used  only  one  of  them,  Question  27  of  the  Shorter  Catechism, 
in  order  to  state  that  it  teaches  a  doctrine  directly  contrary  to 
my  doctrine.  But  that  was  a  mere  assertion  without  proof, 
and  no  proposal  was  made  to  show  that  that  doctrine  is  an  es¬ 
sential  doctrine  of  the  Standards.  Therefore  I  ask  that  you 
decide  in  accordance  with  law  and  usage  in  courts  of  justice 
and  throw  out  the  Charge  which  is  so  destitute  of  proof.  But 
inasmuch  as  I  desire  that  you  should  know  what  is  the  precise 
relation  of  my  doctrine  to  the  Westminster  Standards,  I  shall 
consider  these  passages.  (1)  It  is  true  that  it  is  taught  in 
the  Shorter  Catechism  that  “the  souls  of  believers  are  at  their 


PROGRESSIVE  SANCTIFICATION  AFTER  DEATH 


153 


death  made  perfect  in  holiness”  (37);  but  it  is  not  said  that 
at  their  death  believers  are  immediately,  in  a  moment  of  time, 
“  at  once ”  by  divine  transformation,  made  perfect  in  holiness. 
I  can  say  at  their  death  made  “  perfect  in  holiness  ”  because  I 
believe  that  the  souls  of  believers  at  death  enter  the  Mid¬ 
dle  State,  in  which  state  they  are  made  perfect  in  holiness 
by  progressive  sanctification.  “  At  their  death  ”  does  not  nec¬ 
essarily  imply  “  in  the  very  moment  of  the  transition  from  life 
to  death,”  or  in  the  exact  second  of  time  after  the  spirit  has 
departed  from  the  body ;  but  “  at  their  death  ”  is  in  antithesis 
with  “  in  this  life,  ”  and  means  nothing  more  than  “  in  the  state 
of  death.”  “Made  perfect  in  holiness”  does  not  necessarily 
imply  “  that  the  sanctification  of  the  soul  is  instantaneously,  in 
the  moment  of  time  after  it  leaves  the  body,  perfected  and  com¬ 
pleted  ;  ”  but  it  is  consistent  with  the  belief  that  the  soul  is  made 
perfect  in  holiness  in  the  state  of  death.  The  Larger  Cate¬ 
chism  teaches  that — 

“The  communion  in  glory  with  Christ,  which  the  members  of  the  in¬ 
visible  church  enjoy  immediately  after  death,  is  in  that  their  souls  are 
then  made  perfect  in  holiness,  and  received  into  the  highest  heavens, 
where  they  behold  the  face  of  God  in  light  and  glory  ;  waiting  for  the 
full  redemption  of  their  bodies  ”  (86) . 

It  is  not  said  that  their  souls  are  made  immediately  perfect 
in  holiness  after  death  any  more  than  it  is  said  immediately 
received  into  the  highest  heavens.  This  question  speaks  of  the 
communion  in  glory  with  Christ  which  the  members  of  the 
invisible  church  enjoy  immediately  after  death.  Is  that  com¬ 
munion  limited  to  the  moment  of  time  at  death?  Does  it  not 
rather  continue  during  the  whole  time  in  that  state,  beginning 
immediately  after  death?  Immediately  after  death  in  this 
passage  means  the  whole  state  which  begins  immediately  after 
death,  during  which  the  communion  is  enjoyed,  as  we  might 
infer  also  from  the  clause  “  waiting  for  the  full  redemption  of 
their  bodies.”  What  therefore  is  affirmed  as  happening  imme¬ 
diately  after  death  is  affirmed  as  happening  during  that  state  of 
communion  and  waiting  which  begins  immediate^  after  death ; 
and  not  in  the  moment  of  time  that  begins  that  state.  The  four 
affirmations  are  not  of  successive  chronological  events,  but  of 


154 


THE  DEFENCE  OF  PROFESSOR  BRIGGS 


parallel  events:  (1)  “made  perfect  in  holiness, ”(2)  “received 
into  the  highest  heavens,”  (3)  “behold  the  face  of  God  in  light 
and  glory,”  (4)  “waiting  for  the  full  redemption  of  their 
bodies ;”  all  alike  refer  to  the  communion  in  glory  with  Christ, 
which  continues  throughout  this  entire  state  from  death  to  the 
resurrection.  There  is  nothing  in  the  text  or  the  context  of 
this  passage,  or  in  the  proof  texts  of  the  Confession  cited  to 
sustain  it,  to  indicate  that  “  made  perfect  in  holiness”  applies 
only  to  the  moment  of  time  when  the  Middle  State  begins,  or 
that  it  confines  the  communion  with  Christ  in  the  long  period 
of  the  state  which  follows  the  moment  immediately  after 
death,  to  the  single  thing  “  waiting  for  the  full  redemption  of 
their  bodies.” 

This  interpretation  of  the  phrase  “  immediately  after  death” 
is  made  probable  when  we  put  Question  86  in  its  context  in  the 
midst  of  the  group  of  Questions  82-90.  Question  82  asks : 

“What  is  the  communion  in  glory,  which  the  members  of  the  invisible 
church  have  with  Christ?”  The  answer  is:  “The  communion  in  glory, 
which  the  members  of  the  invisible  church  have  with  Christ,  is  in  this 
life,  immediately  after  death,  and  at  last  perfected  at  the  resurrection 
and  day  of  judgment.” 

Here  then  are  three  states  in  which  this  communion  with 
Christ  is  enjoyed :  (1)  this  life ;  (2)  immediately  after  death ;  (3) 
at  the  resurrection  and  day  of  judgment.  The  communion 
with  Christ  is  evidently  not  limited  to  the  point  of  time  imme¬ 
diately  after  death,  but  to  the  state  beginning  immediately 
after  death  and  extending  up  to  the  day  of  judgment ;  for  “  in 
this  life”  clearly  refers  not  to  any  single  moment  in  this  life, 
but  to  the  whole  Christian  state  in  this  life  from  the  moment  in 
which  Christian  life  begins  in  regeneration  until  the  soul  departs 
from  the  body  at  death.  So  “  at  the  resurrection  and  day  of 
judgment”  is  not  limited  to  a  moment  of  time  when  the  resur¬ 
rection  and  the  judgment  may  take  place;  but  refers  to  the 
final  state  of  communion  with  Christ  beginning  with  resurrec¬ 
tion  and  judgment  but  extending  through  all  eternity.  Accord¬ 
ingly,  “  immediately  after  death,”  which  intervenes  between  this 
life  and  “at  the  resurrection  and  day  of  judgment,”  is  not 
limited  to  the  moment  of  the  soul’s  departure  into  the  Middle 


PROGRESSIVE  SANCTIFICATION  AFTER  DEATH 


155 


State,  but  comprehends  the  communion  with  Christ  which  is 
the  experience  of  believers  from  the  moment  of  death  till  the 
day  of  resurrection.  The  scope  of  the  question  makes  this  cer¬ 
tain.  Observe  the  question  is :  “  What  is  the  communion  in 
glory,  which  the  members  of  the  invisible  church  have  with 
Christ?”  It  is  extremely  improbable  that  the  Westminster 
divines  would  limit  that  communion  in  the  future  state  to 
two  points  of  time — first,  the  moment  of  death,  and  second, 
the  moment  of  resurrection,  and  leave  entirely  out  of  view  the 
millenniums  of  the  Middle  State  and  the  eternities  of  the 
Ultimate  State. 

In  accordance  with  this  general  statement  of  Question  82, 
which  we  have  thus  analyzed,  there  follow  separate  questions 
as  to  each  one  of  these  states : 

(83)  “  What  is  the  communion  in  glory  with  Christ,  which 
the  members  of  the  invisible  church  enjoy  in  this  life?” 

(86)  “  What  is  the  communion  in  glory  with  Christ,  which  the 
members  of  the  invisible  church  enjoy  immediately  after  death?” 

(90)  “What  shall  be  done  to  the  righteous  at  the  day  of 
judgment?” 

The  “  immediately  after  death”  of  the  specific  question  has 
the  same  meaning  as  the  “immediately  after  death”  of  the 
general  question ;  and  the  meaning  of  the  “  immediately  after 
death”  of  the  answer  must  be  the  same,  all  therefore  referring 
to  the  state  immediately  after  death,  and  not  to  the  point  of 
time  at  death.  Therefore  there  is  no  proof  that  the  clause 
“  then  made  perfect  in  holiness”  is  to  be  limited  to  the  very 
moment  of  death. 

Furthermore,  there  are  several  expressions  in  these  questions 
and  answers  which  do  not  agree  with  the  doctrine  of  immediate 
and  perfect  sanctification  in  the  moment  of  death.  The  state¬ 
ment  “at  last  perfected  at  the  resurrection  and  day  of  judg¬ 
ment  ”  indicates  that  the  glory  of  the  Middle  State  is  interme¬ 
diate  glory  and  not  perfected  glory.  The  statement  “  waiting 
for  the  full  redemption  of  their  bodies  ”  shows  that  the  redemp¬ 
tion  was  not  yet  full  nor  yet  perfected  at  death,  that  it  could 
not  be  full,  could  not  be  perfected  till  the  day  of  judgment. 
And  Question  90  tells  us  that  the  righteous  will  be  openly 
acknowledged  and  acquitted  at  “the  day  of  judgment,”  not 


156 


THE  DEFENCE  OF  PROFESSOR  BRIGGS 


before ;  that  they  “  shall  be  received  into  heaven,  where  they  shall 
be  fully  and  forever  freed  from  all  sin  and  misery ;  filled  with 
inconceivable  joys;  made  perfectly  holy  and  happy  both  in 
body  and  soul,  in  the  company  of  innumerable  saints  and  angels, 
but  especially  in  the  immediate  vision  and  fruition  of  God  the 
Father,  of  our  Lord  Jesus  Christ,  and  of  the  Holy  Spirit,  to  all 
eternity.  And  this  is  the  perfect  and  full  communion,  which 
the  members  of  the  invisible  church  shall  enjoy  with  Christ  in 
glory,  at  the  resurrection  and  day  of  judgment.” 

Such  expressions  as  these  with  reference  to  the  day  of  judg¬ 
ment  indicate  that  “the  perfect  and  full  communion  with 
Christ  in  glory”  is  not  enjoyed  until  that  time;  that  then,  first, 
believers  will  “be  openly  acknowledged  and  acquitted;”  that 
not  till  then  shall  they  “  be  fully  and  forever  freed  from  all  sin ;” 
that  not  till  then  shall  they  “be  made  perfectly  holy.” 

It  is  evident,  therefore,  from  these  statements  of  our  Standards, 
that  perfect  holiness, perfect  redemption,  perfect  communion  with 
Christ  in  glory, -cannot  be  enjoyed  until  the  decisions  of  the  day 
of  judgment.  How  can  any  one  be  perfectly  sanctified  who  has 
not  attained  “  perfect  and  full  communion  with  Christ  in  glory,” 
who  has  not  yet  been  “openly  acknowledged  and  acquitted,” 
and  who  still  has  to  look  forward  to  the  resurrection  when  for 
the  first  he  will  be  “  fully  and  forever  freed  from  all  sin  ”  and 
made  “perfectly  holy  and  happy  both  in  body  and  soul”? 
Those  who  teach  immediate  sanctification  at  death  are  in 
irresistible  conflict  with  these  statements  of  the  Confession; 
whereas  those  who  teach  progressive  sanctification  after  death 
and  regard  the  state  immediately  after  death  as  a  state  during 
which  men  are  made  perfect  in  holiness,  which  progress  in  per¬ 
fection  reaches  its  end  at  the  day  of  judgment,  reconcile  all 
these  statements  of  the  Larger  Catechism  into  a  higher  unity, 
where  there  is  complete  and  perfect  harmony. 

I  am  well  aware  that  these  statements  are  obscure  and  capable 
of  such  interpretation  as  to  involve  them  in  many  inconsisten¬ 
cies.  I  do  not  claim  that  the  Westminster  divines  were 
altogether  clear  themselves  as  to  these  difficult  questions  of 
eschatology.  I  am  also  aware  that  many  citations  can  be  made 
from  their  writings  which  teach  immediate  sanctification  at 
death.  I  have  doubtless  seen  the  most,  if  not  all  such  extracts 


PROGRESSIVE  SANCTIFICATION  AFTER  DEATH 


157 


as  can  be  adduced.  But  whatever  the  opinions  of  any  or  all  of 
them  were  on  this  subject,  when  they  constructed  the  careful 
statements  of  our  Standards,  they  were  obliged  to  keep  close  to 
the  doctrines  of  Holy  Scripture,  and  thus  it  is  that  their  state¬ 
ments,  though  indefinite  and  obscure,  in  no  wise  come  in  conflict 
with  the  doctrine  of  progressive  sanctification  after  death,  and 
in  no  wise  teach  the  error  of  immediate  sanctification  at  death. 
The  Westminster  divines  shared  the  common  fault  of  the  Prot¬ 
estantism  of  the  16th  and  17th  centuries  in  that  having 
thrown  aside  the  Roman  Catholic  doctrine  of  Purgatory,  and 
having  neglected  to  revive  the  ancient  Catholic  doctrine  of  the 
Middle  State,  they  left  the  Middle  State  between  death  and  the 
resurrection  in  their  definitions,  but  did  not  carefully  distin¬ 
guish  it  from  the  Ultimate  State.  Accordingly  in  their  creeds, 
neglecting  to  make  important  distinctions  and  yet  adhering 
closely  to  Scripture,  they  did  not  fall  into  statements  of  error; 
but  in  their  writings  failing  to  observe  the  distinction  made  in 
Holy  Scripture  between  the  Abaddon  of  the  Middle  State  and 
the  Gehenna  of  the  Ultimate  State,  and  between  the  heaven  of 
the  Middle  State  and  the  heaven  of  the  Final  State,  they  said 
many  things  of  the  one  that  belong  properly  to  the  other. 
When  therefore,  in  accord  with  many  modern  Protestant  theo¬ 
logians,  I  advance  into  this  unexplored  territory  of  the  Middle 
State  and  go  beyond  the  Westminster  Confession  in  my  state¬ 
ments  and  definitions,  follow  in  the  lines  drawn  by  the  ancient 
Church  and  gather  together  all  the  teachings  of  Holy  Scripture, 
and  so  more  carefully  distinguish  between  the  Middle  State  and 
the  Ultimate  State,  I  do  not  violate  the  statements  of  the  Con¬ 
fession;  I  go  into  regions  of  liberty  and  extra-confessional 
dogma,  and  in  those  regions  pursue  the  scientific,  historical,  and 
Biblical  methods  of  investigation  and  statement. 

(2)  If  any  one  insists  upon  rejecting  the  proof  that  has  been 
given  with  regard  to  the  proper  interpretation  of  the  phrase 
“made  perfect  in  holiness,”  his  attention  is  invited  to  the  West¬ 
minster  doctrine  of  sanctification  and  he  is  asked,  if  there  be 
an  inconsistency  between  the  two  chapters,  which  is  the  more 
important  chapter  of  the  Confession,  the  one  giving  the  general 
doctrine  of  progressive  sanctification  or  the  one  giving  the 
specific  doctrine  of  immediate  sanctification  at  death  under  the 


158 


THE  DEFENCE  OF  PROFESSOR  BRIGGS 


head  of  the  doctrine  of  the  Middle  State?  The  chapter  on  sanc¬ 
tification  knows  no  other  sanctification  than  progressive  sanc¬ 
tification.  Listen  to  this  doctrine : 

“  I.  They  who  are  effectually  called  and  regenerated,  having  a  new  heart 
and  a  new  spirit  created  in  them,  are  further  sanctified,  really  and  per¬ 
sonally,  through  the  virtue  of  Christ’s  death  and  resurrection,  by  his  word 
and  Spirit  dwelling  in  them  :  the  dominion  of  the  whole  body  of  sin  is 
destroyed,  and  the  several  lusts  thereof  are  more  and  more  weakened  and 
mortified  ;  and  they  more  and  more  quickened  and  strengthened,  in  all 
saving  graces,  to  the  practice  of  true  holiness,  without  which  no  man 
shall  see  the  Lord. 

“  II.  This  sanctification  is  throughout  in  the  whole  man,  yet  imperfect 
in  this  life  :  there  abideth  still  some  remnants  of  corruption  in  every 
part,  whence  arisetli  a  continual  and  irreconcilable  war,  the  flesh  lusting 
against  the  Spirit,  and  the  Spirit  against  the  flesh. 

“III.  In  which  war,  although  the  remaining  corruption  for  a  time 
may  much  prevail,  yet,  through  the  continual  supply  of  strength  from 
the  sanctifying  Spirit  of  Christ,  the  regenerate  part  doth  overcome  :  and 
so  the  saints  grow  in  grace,  perfecting  holiness  in  the  fear  of  God  ” 
(Chap.  XIII.). 

This  chapter  is  one  of  the  choicest  productions  of  the  West¬ 
minster  divines.  It  sets  forth  truly  and  accurately  the  doctrine 
of  Holy  Scripture.  If  the  Presbyterian  Church  had  bound  this 
13th  chapter  on  their  heart  instead  of  the  3d  chapter,  and  had 
made  the  Scriptural  doctrine  of  sanctification  their  article  of 
the  standing  and  falling  Church,  rather  than  the  scholastic 
dogma  of  reprobation,  what  a  glorious  history  they  might  have 
had  in  the  last  two  centuries !  There  would  have  been  no  need 
of  the  agonies  of  the  present  revision  movement.  It  seems 
sometimes  as  if  those  who  insist  upon  immediate  sanctification 
at  death  were  using  the  term  sanctification  in  a  different  sense 
from  the  Westminster  Standards.  Sanctification  is  sometimes 
used  in  the  Scriptures  and  also  in  theological  literature  and 
debate,  for  that  cleansing  from  sin  which  takes  place  in  the  laver 
of  regeneration;  and  again  for  that  induction  into  a  higher 
Christian  life  which  is  effected  by  the  power  of  the  Holy 
Spirit  upon  the  souls  of  men  at  certain  crises  of  their  history. 
I  do  not  question  that  men  are  sanctified  in  the  sense  that  they 
are  washed  in  the  laver  of  regeneration  clean  from  every  cor¬ 
ruption,  taint,  and  defilement  of  sin.  I  do  not  doubt  that  the 


PROGRESSIVE  SANCTIFICATION  AFTER  DEATH 


15‘J 


fountain  which  flows  from  the  Redeemer’s  side  cleanseth  from 
all  sin  in  the  hour  of  death  as  in  any  hour  of  life,  when  the 
sinner  opens  his  heart  in  faith  and  repentance  to  the  saving 
love  of  Jesus.  So  again  I  do  not  question  the  higher  life  that 
men  may  attain  in  this  world,  when  throwing  aside  every  weight 
of  besetting  sin,  tearing  away  all  the  bands  of  evil  habits  and 
associations,  dissolving  every  other  tie  which  might  restrain 
them  from  God  and  duty,  they  consecrate  themselves  to  the 
service  of  the  Redeemer  and  with  fresh  courage  strain  every 
nerve  of  holy  resolution,  striving  for  the  love  of  Christ  in  the 
passion  of  self-sacrificing  devotion  to  the  Master’s  service. 
The  divine  Spirit  lifts  up  such  consecrated  ones  to  a  higher 
plane  of  religious  experience  and  fills  their  souls  with  joy  and 
holy  endeavor.  I  firmly  believe  that  such  transformations, 
long  prepared  by  the  Spirit’s  secret  workings  upon  the  soul, 
may  take  place  immediately  in  a  moment  of  time,  in  a  happy 
hour  which  seems  like  a  second  birth,  a  second  resurrection. 
It  is  the  shooting  of  the  plant  of  grace  above  the  ground  after 
the  long  season  of  sowing  and  germination  in  the  secret 
recesses  of  the  heart.  It  is  the  springing  forth  of  the  blossom 
in  the  spring-time  after  a  long  winter’s  secret  preparation. 
That  there  will  be  such  a  transformation  at  death,  the  spring¬ 
time  of  a  new  life,  I  do  not  doubt.  I  firmly  believe  that  then 
there  will  be  a  transformation  greater  than  any  that  is  possible 
in  this  life.  You  may  call  this  sanctification  if  you  will,  you 
may  say  that  this  is  “being  made  perfect  in  holiness,”  if  that  is 
your  meaning;  but  if  you  do  you  have  a  very  meagre  and  inade¬ 
quate  conception  of  the  sanctification  taught  in  the  Holy  Scrip¬ 
ture  and  in  the  Westminster  Confession.  Christian  sanctifica¬ 
tion  is  vastly  higher,  grander,  and  more  glorious  than  this.  Ac¬ 
cording  to  the  Westminster  Confession,  it  is  not  merely  cleans¬ 
ing  from  sin  and  rising  to  a  higher  grade  of  Christian  life  and  ex¬ 
perience,  “it  is  being  more  and  more  strengthened  in  all  saving 
graces,  to  the  practice  of  true  holiness.”  How  can  there  be  the 
practice  of  true  holiness  except  in  time  of  duration?  How  can 
there  be  the  practice  of  true  holiness  without  holy  conduct? 
How  can  there  be  holy  conduct  without  Christian  activity? 
How  can  there  be  Christian  activity  without  doing  and  work¬ 
ing  and  serving  Christ  and  the  brethren?  The  practice  of 


160 


THE  DEFENCE  OF  PROFESSOR  BRIGGS 


true  holiness,  therefore,  must  follow  the  transformation  that 
takes  place  at  death — it  cannot  be  a  part  of  it.  It  is  conceivable 
that  believers  at  their  death  may  be  immediately  so  strengthened 
in  all  saving  graces  as  to  be  perfectly  endowed  for  the  practice  of 
true  holiness,  but  it  is  inconceivable  that  the  practice  itself  could 
be  immediately  imparted.  The  practice  of  true  holiness  cannot 
be  given  by  God ;  it  must  be  the  exercise  and  work  of  man, 
under  the  influence  of  the  divine  Spirit,  and  must  follow  any 
influence  of  sanctification  at  death.  But  inasmuch  as  the 
practice  is  an  essential  part  of  the  sanctification  and  there  can 
be  no  completeness  of  sanctification,  no  perfection  in  holiness 
without  the  practice  of  true  holiness,  the  completion  of  sancti¬ 
fication  at  the  moment  of  death  is  impossible. 

The  Westminster  Confession  also  teaches  that  “this  sanctifi¬ 
cation  is  throughout  in  the  whole  man.”  The  text  cited  in 
proof  of  the  position  is : 

“  And  the  very  God  of  peace  sanctify  you  wholly ;  and  I 
pray  God  your  whole  spirit  and  soul  and  body  be  preserved 
blameless  unto  the  coming  of  our  Lord  J»sus  Christ”  (I.  Thess. 
v.  23).  It  is  manifest  that  according  to  this  text  and  this 
statement  of  the  Confession,  sanctification  embraces  the  body 
as  well  as  the  soul.  Sanctification  cannot  be  completed  with¬ 
out  the  body.  It  is  clearly  taught  in  the  Confession,  XXXII., 
that  believers  are  waiting  in  the  Middle  State  “  until  the  day 
of  judgment  for  the  full  redemption  of  their  bodies.”  So  the 
Larger  Catechism  states  that  then  at  the  day  of  judgment  “  they 
shall  be  fully  and  forever  freed  from  all  sin  and  misery,  filled 
with  inconceivable  joys,  made  perfectly  holy  and  happy  both 
in  body  and  soul.”  Wherefore  according  to  the  Westminster 
Standards,  the  full  redemption  of  their  bodies,  the  sanctification 
of  their  bodies,  “made  perfectly  holy  in  body  and  soul,”  does 
not  take  place  until  the  day  of  judgment.  Therefore  sanctifi¬ 
cation  is  not  throughout  in  the  whole  man  until  the  day  of 
judgment.  Man  cannot,  therefore,  be  immediately  and  com¬ 
pletely  sanctified  at  death.  That  measure  of  sanctification 
which  he  r3cei/3S  at  death  is  intermediate  between  the  sancti¬ 
fication  in  this  life  and  the  complete  sanctification  at  the  day  of 
judgment.  It  is  furthermore  evident  that  the  apostle,  in  the 
text  cited,  is  praying,  not  that  God  would  sanctify  the  Thessalo- 


PROGRESSIVE  SANCTIFICATION  AFTER  DEATH 


161 


nians  wholly  at  death,  or  present  them  blameless  at  the  hour  of 
death,  but  “unto  the  coming  of  our  Lord  Jesus,”  that  is,  the 
second  advent;  and  what  is  that  but  the  day  of  the  resurrection 
of  the  body  and  the  final  judgment? 

If  therefore,  by  any  confusion  of  mind,  the  Westminster 
divines  have  taught  in  Chapter  XXXII.,  and  the  corresponding 
questions  and  answers  of  the  Larger  and  Shorter  Catechisms, 
the  doctrine  of  immediate  sanctification  at  death,  they  have 
thereby  through  inadvertence  taught  a  doctrine  which  is  irrec¬ 
oncilable  with  and  contrary  to  and  in  conflict  with  their  doc¬ 
trine  of  sanctification  and  their  doctrine  of  the  resurrection  of 
the  body,  and  their  doctrine  of  the  day  of  judgment.  Can  any 
doubt,  in  such  a  case,  which  passage  must  give  way?  Shall 
we  give  up  three  doctrines  of  greatest  importance  for  the  sake 
of  one  doctrine  of  lesser  importance? 

(3)  I  freely  grant  that  the  most  natural  interpretation  of  the  * 
phrases  of  the  Westminster  Standards,  “at  their  death  made 
perfect  in  holiness,”  or  “immediately  after  death,”  is  in  favor 
of  the  doctrine  of  immediate  sanctification  at  death,  though  I 
think  that  the  contexts  of  the  Larger  Catechism  and  the  Con¬ 
fession  disprove  that  interpretation.  But  granting  that  my  in¬ 
terpretation  is  wrong,  the  question  arises  whether  the  doctrine 
of  immediate  sanctification  at  death  is  an  essential  doctrine  of 
the  Westminster  Confession.  Can  you  regard  the  doctrine  as 
essential  to  the  Westminster  system  of  doctrine?  It  is  a  doc¬ 
trine  in  the  difficult  field  of  eschatology,  where  there  must 
he  liberty  for  investigation,  statement,  and  debate,  until  the 
Church  has  matured  its  Christian  experience  and  defined  more 
closely  its  faith. 

Is  the  Presbytery  ready  to  take  the  position  that  the  dogma 
of  immediate  sanctification  at  death  is  an  essential  doctrine  of 
the  Presbyterian  Church,  so  that  no  man  can  become  a  Presby¬ 
terian  minister  who  does  not  hold  it?  If  so,  you  stretch  and 
strain  the  line  of  cardinal  and  essential  doctrines  to  an  extent 
that  will  be  destructive  of  the  peace  and  prosperity  of  the 
Church.  I  doubt  whether  the  superior  courts  will  sustain  you 
in  such  a  position,  and  if  they  should  do  this  wrong  to  the 
Church  of  God,  the  Christian  world  will  regard  them  as 
breaking  the  bonds  of  catholicity. 

11 


162 


THE  DEFENCE  OF  PROFESSOR  BRIGGS 


II.  —  The  Doctrine  of  Holy  Scripture 

I  shall  now  endeavor  to  show  you  that  the  doctrine  of  imme¬ 
diate  sanctification  at  death  is  against  the  Holy  Scriptures. 
Nowhere  in  Scripture  is  death  the  crisis  for  which,  men  are  to 
prepare  themselves.  It  is  always  the  day  of  judgment,  the 
advent  da3^,  the  resurrection  day,  which  is  the  goal  of  hope  or 
of  fear,  of  aspiration  or  of  dread,  of  harvest  or  of  doom. 

A  large  number  of  the  passages  which  were  cited  in  the  origi¬ 
nal  Charge  have  nothing  to  do  with  the  matter  in  hand.  All 
of  these  have  been  abandoned  in  the  present  Charge  but  two. 
I  would  limit  myself  to  these  two  were  it  not  that  under  the 
clause  with  which  they  close  their  Charges,  they  claim  the 
right  and  you  have  granted  them  the  right  to  offer  in  evidence 
the  “  whole  of  the  Holy  Scriptures,  ”  and  they  have  brought  many 
of  them  in  again  in  argument  against  me.  I  shall  therefore 
test  them  all. 

(1)  Let  us  first  consider  the  passages  which  have  nothing  to 
do  with  the  future  life  as  such,  (a)  Jesus  is  “the  Lamb  of 
God  which  taketh  away  the  sin  of  the  world  ”  (John  i.  29) ;  but 
this  fact  is  not  inconsistent  with  progressive  sanctification  in 
this  life.  How  then  can  it  be  inconsistent  with  progressive 
sanctification  in  the  Middle  State?  ( b )  It  may  be  often  said  of 
us  as  Jesus  said  to  Peter  in  Gethsemane,  “  The  Spirit  indeed  is 
willing,  but  the  flesh  is  weak”  (Matt.  xxvi.  41).  But  this 
does  not  imply  the  Manichsean  heresy  that  the  seat  of  sin  is  in 
the  flesh  and  that  therefore  the  disembodied  spirit  will  be  per¬ 
fect.  Such  a  doctrine  is  far  from  the  thought  of  these  words  of 
Jesus,  (c)  The  prayer  of  the  apostle  for  the  Ephesians,  “that 
he  would  grant  you  according  to  the  riches  of  his  glory,  that 
ye  may  be  strengthened  with  power  through  the  Spirit  in  the 
inward  man”  (Eph.  iii.  16),  as  the  context  shows  implies  pro¬ 
gressive  sanctification  in  this  life,  and  therefore  would  imply  that 
this  progressive  sanctification  would  be  continued  until  perfect 
sanctification  has  been  reached.  There  is  nothing  in  text  or  con¬ 
text  to  suggest  that  this  perfect  sanctification  is  reached  in  the 
moment  of  death. 

(2)  We  shall  next  consider  the  passages  cited  by  the  prosecu¬ 
tion  which  relate  to  the  second  advent  and  the  resurrection  day 


PROGRESSIVE  SANCTIFICATION  AFTER  DEATH 


163 


and  which  have  nothing  to  do  with  the  Middle  State,  (a)  The 
awards  to  him  that  overcometh  (Rev.  iii.  5)  are  the  awards  of 
the  judgment  day.  ( b )  The  multitudes  clothed  in  white  robes 
and  with  victor’s  palms  (Rev.  vii.  8-14)  are  the  redeemed  of 
the  last  great  day.  (c)  The  clothing  of  the  bride  in  the  right¬ 
eousness  of  the  saints  (Rev.  xix.  8)  is  at  the  bridal  of  the  Mes¬ 
siah.  (cl)  The  mysterious  change  in  a  moment  of  time  (I.  Cor. 
xv.  51,  52)  is  the  resurrection  change.  ( e )  The  rapture  of  the 
saints  to  be  forever  with  the  Lord  (I.  Thess.  iv.  16,  17)  is  the 
rapture  of  the  second  advent.  None  of  these  passages  have 
anything  to  do  with  the  doctrine  of  the  Middle  State,  except  so 
far  as  they  show  that  as  death  is  the  entrance  into  the  Middle 
State,  the  resurrection,  second  advent,  and  the  day  of  judgment 
are  the  exit  from  the  Middle  State  upon  the  Ultimate  State. 

(3)  We  shall  now  consider  two  passages  at  greater  length. 
(a)  The  advice  of  Paul  to  Timothy  (I.  Tim.  iv.  8),  “Exercise 
thyself  unto  godliness :  for  bodily  exercise  is  profitable  for  a  lit¬ 
tle;  but  godliness  is  profitable  for  all  things,  having  promise  of 
the  life  which  now  is,  and  of  that  which  is  to  come,”  is  an 
advice  to  progressive  sanctification  without  any  hint  that  sanc¬ 
tification  stops  at  death.  If  he  could  say,  “Exercise  thyself 
unto  godliness,  for  it  is  profitable,  having  promise  of  the  life 
which  now  is,  and  also  the  life  which  is  to  come,”  does  this  imply 
that  the  exercise  unto  godliness  was  to  be  limited  to  this  life? 
If  the  exercise  unto  godliness  was  not  to  cease  during  “  the  life 
which  now  is,”  even  after  its  profit  and  promise  were  realized  in 
part,  why  should  it  cease  in  “the  life  which  is  to  come,”  when 
its  profit  and.  promise  were  in  process  of  realization  there?  The 
exhortation  is  rather  to  go  on  in  the  exercise  of  godliness  in 
“  the  life  which  now  is,”  and  also  in  “the  life  which  is  to  come,” 
and  win  by  your  exercise  its  profitableness  and  its  promise  in 
both  lives,  (b)  The  rest  granted  to  the  blessed  dead  (Rev.  xiv. 
13)  doubtless  refers  to  the  Middle  State — but  it  teaches  simply 
rest  from  labor,  the  enjoyment  of  the  fruits  of  the  works  which 
follow  them,  and  blessedness;  it  does  not  teach  that  these 
blessed  dead  cease  from  the  practice  of  true  holiness,  abandon 
the  exercise  unto  godliness,  leave  off  Christian  ministry,  and  no 
longer  grow  in  knowledge,  in  grace,  and  in  sanctification,  (c) 
The  Middle  State  is  graphically  presented  to  us  by  our  Lord 


164 


THE  DEFENCE  OF  PROFESSOR  BRIGGS 


in  the  story  of  Dives  and  Lazarus  (Luke  xvi.  22-26).  This  is 
the  Middle  State  during  the  old  dispensation  before  the  descent 
of  Jesus  into  the  abode  of  the  dead  and  His  resurrection  to  the 
heights  of  heaven.  I  shall  not  raise  the  question  whether  Jesus 
by  His  resurrection  from  Hades  made  essential  changes  in  the 
Middle  State  or  not.  It  is  sufficient  for  my  purpose  here  to  call 
your  attention  to  the  fact  that  it  is  not  said  that  the  sanctifica¬ 
tion  of  Lazarus  was  completed  the  moment  when  angel  hands 
placed  him  in  Abraham’s  bosom.  It  rather  favors  the  continu¬ 
ation  of  the  work  of  sanctification,  because  he  there  enjoyed 
communion  with  Abraham.  Was  there  no  pious  instruction 
for  him  to  receive,  no  holy  example  for  him  to  follow,  no  holy 
gratitude  to  express,  no  holy  service  to  render,  no  holy  conduct 
for  this  poor  beggar  to  practise  in  Abraham’s  bosom?  Did  he 
learn  no  lessons  of  the  justice  of  God,  of  the  evil  of  sin,  of  the 
delights  of  righteousness  and  of  holy  sanctification  in  the  con¬ 
versation  with  Dives?  How  can  we  conceive  of  such  an 
experience  without  growth  in  holiness  on  the  part  of  the 
redeemed  beggar?  John  Wesley  uses  these  wise  words  on  this 
passage : 

“  Can  we  reasonably  doubt  but  that  those  who  are  now  in  Paradise  in 
Abraham’s  bosom,  all  those  holy  souls  who  have  been  discharged  from 
the  body  from  the  beginning  of  the  world  unto  this  day,  will  be  contin¬ 
ually  ripening  for  heaven,  will  be  perpetually  holier  and  happier,  till 
they  are  received  into  the  kingdom  prepared  for  them  from  the  founda¬ 
tion  of  the  world V”  (“Works,”  CXXVI.,  Sermon  on  Faith). 

(4)  Paul  expresses  the  desire  to  depart  from  this  earthly 
life  into  the  presence  of  Christ  in  heaven : 

“  For  we  know  that  if  the  earthly  house  of  our  tabernacle  be  dissolved, 
we  have  a  building  from  God,  a  house  not  made  with  hands,  eternal,  in 
the  heavens.  For  verily  in  this  we  groan,  longing  to  be  clothed  upon 
with  our  habitation  which  is  from  heaven  :  if  so  be  that  being  clothed 
we  shall  not  be  found  naked.  For  indeed  we  that  are  in  this  tabernacle 
do  groan,  being  burdened ;  not  for  that  we  would  be  unclothed,  but  that 
we  would  be  clothed  upon,  that  what  is  mortal  may  be  swallowed  up  of 
life.  Now  he  that  hath  wrought  us  for  this  very  thing  is  God,  who  gave 
unto  us  the  earnest  of  the  Spirit.  Being  therefore  always  of  good  courage, 
and  knowing  that,  whilst  we  are  at  home  in  the  body,  we  are  absent 
from  the  Lord  (for  we  walk  by  faith,  not  by  sight)  ;  we  are  of  good 
courage,  I  say,  and  are  willing  rather  to  be  absent  from  the  body,  and  to 


PROGRESSIVE  SANCTIFICATION  AFTER  DEATH 


165 


be  at  home  with  the  Lord.  Wherefore  also  we  make  it  our  aim,  whether 
at  home  or  absent,  to  be  well-pleasing  unto  him.  For  we  must  all  be  made 
manifest  before  the  judgment-seat  of  Christ ;  that  each  one  may  receive 
the  things  done  in  the  body,  according  to  what  he  hath  done,  whether  it 
be  good  or  bad”  (II.  Cor.  v.  1-10) . 

In  this  passage  there  is  contrast  between  life  in  the  body  and 
life  apart  from  the  bod}7,  life  in  this  world  away  from  the  Mes¬ 
siah  and  life  in  the  heaven  of  the  Middle  State  with  the  Mes¬ 
siah,  between  the  earthly  body  and  the  heavenly  body.  The 
apostle  does  not  leap  in  thought  over  the  Middle  State  to  the 
Ultimate  State,  because  he  has  in  mind  the  departure  from  the 
body  in  order  to  be  in  the  heavenly  region  of  the  Middle  State. 
He  is  not  thinking  of  the  advent  of  Christ  while  he  remained 
in  the  body,  or  of  a  resurrection  of  the  body,  but  of  his  going 
away  from  the  body  to  the  presence  of  Christ,  just  as  in  the 
epistle  to  the  Philippians  he  longs  to  depart  and  be  with  Christ, 
which  was  much  better  for  him  than  life  in  this  world  (i.  23). 
He  expresses  the  confidence  that  when  he  dies  he  will  depart  to 
the  heaven  of  the  Middle  State  to  be  with  Christ,  to  receive  a 
heavenly  body  suitable  for  his  abode  there.  That  this  is  the 
mind  of  the  apostle  is  clear  from  the  subsequent  context.  He 
aims  to  be  well-pleasing  to  the  Messiah  whether  at  home  with 
Him  in  the  heavenly  state  or  absent  from  Him  in  this  world, 
because  he  sees  at  the  end  of  the  Middle  State  as  well  as  at  the 
end  of  the  course  of  this  world  the  judgment-seat  of  the  Mes¬ 
siah,  before  which  everything  will  be  made  manifest  for  final 
decision.  A  similar  doctrine  is  taught  in  Rom.  xiv.  7-12: 

“For  none  of  us  liveth  to  himself,  and  none  dieth  to  himself.  For 
whether  we  live,  we  live  unto  the  Lord :  or  whether  we  die,  we  die  unto 
the  Lord :  whether  we  live  therefore,  or  die,  we  are  the  Lord’s.  For  to 
this  end  Christ  died,  and  lived  again,  that  he  might  be  Lord  of  both  the 
dead  and  the  living.  But  thou,  why  dost  thou  judge  thy  brother?  or 
thou  again,  why  dost  thou  set  at  nought  thy  brother?  for  we  shall  all 
stand  before  the  judgment  seat  of  God.  For  it  is  written,  As  I  live, 
saith  the  Lord,  to  me  every  knee  shall  bow,  and  every  tongue  shall  con¬ 
fess  to  God.  So  then  each  one  of  us  shall  give  account  of  himself  to 
God.  ” 

The  goal  of  the  apostle’s  striving,  therefore,  is  to  be  well¬ 
pleasing  to  Christ,  when  he  is  made  manifest  with  all  his  works 
before  the  judgment-seat  at  the  day  of  judgment;  and  therefore 


160 


THE  DEFENCE  OF  PROFESSOR  BRIGGS 


lie  lias  this  one  aim,  whether  at  home  with  Christ  after  death 
in  the  Middle  State,  or  absent  from  Him  in  this  world,  to  he 
well-pleasing  to  Him.  Aiming  to  please  Christ  in  the  Middle 
State  in  order  to  be  accepted  in  the  day  of  judgment,  what  else 
can  it  be  but  pursuing  the  path  of  Christian  sanctification? 
How  else  could  the  apostle  hope  to  persevere  in  that  aim 
through  all  the  ages  of  the  Middle  State,  unless  the  divine  Spirit 
of  Christ  was  carrying  on  and  perfecting  the  work  of  sanctifica¬ 
tion  in  him  in  the  Middle  State  as  well  as  in  this  life? 

(5)  The  apostle  John  tells  us: 

“  Beloved,  now  are  we  the  children  of  God,  and  it  is  not  yet  made 
manifest  what  we  shall  be.  We  know  that,  if  he  shall  be  manifested, 
we  shall  be  like  him  ;  for  we  shall  see  him  even  as  he  is.  And  every  one 
that  hath  this  hope  set  on  him  purifieth  himself,  even  as  he  is  pure  ” 
(I.  John  iii.  2,  3) . 

“  Whosoever  is  begotten  of  God  doeth  no  sin,  because  his  seed  abideth 
in  him  :  and  he  cannot  sin,  because  he  is  begotten  of  God.  In  this  the 
children  of  God  are  manifest,  and  the  children  of  the  devil :  whosoever 
doeth  not  righteousness  is  not  of  God,  neither  he  that  lovetli  not  his 
brother”  (I.  John  iii.  9,  10). 

The  prosecution  omit  verse  3,  a  passage  that  is  relevant  to 
verse  2;  but  give  verses  9  and  10,  which  have  no  manner  of 
relevancy  to  the  matter  in  hand ;  for  the  doctrine  that  “  whoso¬ 
ever  is  begotten  of  God  doeth  no  sin”  is  a  doctrine  that  applies 
no  more  to  the  Middle  State  after  death  than  it  does  to  the  life 
prior  to  death.  The  apostle  evidently  has  in  mind  this  life  in 
these  verses  and  not  the  future  state.  It  is  perfectly  evident, 
moreover,  that  the  manifestation  of  “  what  we  shall  be,  ”  of  verse 
2,  and  “he  shall  be  manifested,”  of  verse  3,  both  refer  to  the 
second  advent  of  our  Lord,  and  not  to  any  manifestation  of 
Him  to  us  or  of  us  to  others  in  the  Middle  State.  This  passage 
looks  forward  to  the  second  advent  of  Christ  with  earnest  hope. 
This  hope,  set  on  the  appearing  of  the  pure  Christ,  is  a  purify¬ 
ing  hope,  a  sanctifying  hope.  But  the  goal  of  the  hope  is 
when  Christ  shall  be  manifested.  Then  first  the  apostle  will 
belike  Him;  will  be  as  pure  as  He  is  pure.  This  postpone¬ 
ment  of  the  being  like  Christ,  pure  as  Christ  is  pure,  till  the 
second  advent,  makes  it  evident  that  there  can  be  no  completion 
of  the  work  of  sanctification  until  the  second  advent,  or  in 


PROGRESSIVE  SANCTIFICATION  AFTER  DEATH 


167 


other  words  that  the  effort  to  purify  one’s  self  “  even  as  he  is 
pure”  continueth  in  the  Middle  State  just  as  in  this  life  until 
the  goal  of  every  effort  is  reached  at  the  manifestation  of  the 
pure  and  perfect  Christ  in  glory.  The  doctrine  is  plain :  Paul 
teaches  that  his  one  aim  is  to  be  well-pleasing  to  Christ,  at  the 
day  of  judgment.  That  was  to  be  his  aim  in  the  Middle  State 
as  well  as  in  this  world.  John  teaches  that  his  one  hope  was 
to  be  pure  like  Christ  when  He  should  be  manifested  at  the 
second  advent,  and  with  this  hope  he  purifieth  himself  until 
the  appearing  of  Christ,  when  first  he  will  see  Him  in  his  real 
purity  and  become  wholly  like  Him  in  purity. 

(6)  Paul  represents  that  Christ  so  loved  the  Church  as  to  give 
Himself  up  for  it ;  “  that  he  might  sanctify  it,  having  cleansed 
it  by  the  washing  of  water  with  the  word,  that  he  might 
present  the  Church  to  himself  a  glorious  church,  not  having 
spot  or  wrinkle  or  any  such  thing ;  but  that  it  should  be  holy 
and  without  blemish”  (Eph.  v.  26,  27).  The  glorification  of 
the  Church  is  the  ideal  aim  of  Christ.  The  accomplishment  of 
this  glorification  is  first  at  the  bridal  of  the  Lamb.  This  bridal 
takes  place  not  at  the  death  of  the  believer,  but  at  the  second 
advent  of  the  bridegroom.  The  work  of  Christ  until  the  second 
advent  is  summed  up  in  the  work  of  “  sanctifying  and  cleansing 
the  church  by  the  washing  of  water  with  the  word.  ”  Is  the  work 
of  Christ  for  the  Church  confined  to  the  Church  on  earth?  Has 
Christ  no  work  to  do  for  the  Church  of  the  Middle  State?  Does 
the  work  of  preparation  of  the  individual  member  of  the 
Church  cease  at  death  and  continue  only  for  those  who  are  left 
behind  in  this  world?  This  passage  teaches  no  such  doctrine. 
The  presumption  is  all  the  other  way,  that  the  work  of  Christ 
in  perfecting  His  Church  goes  on  for  the  whole  Church,  those 
remaining  in  this  world  and  those  who  are  in  the  Middle 
State,  so  that  the  whole  Church,  which  is  one  organization 
embracing  the  living  and  the  dead,  may  advance  together 
toward  its  perfection.  The  doctrine  of  immediate  sanctifica¬ 
tion  at  death  dishonors  Jesus  Christ,  for  it  confines  His 
heavenly  reign  and  mediation  to  the  Church  in  this  world. 

What  practice  have  infants  and  imbeciles  when  they  enter 
the  Middle  State?  How  far  short  in  practice  do  the  best  of 
men  fall?  Are  they  no  longer  to  have  an  opportunity  for  the 


168 


THE  DEFENCE  OF  PROFESSOR  BRIGGS 


practice  of  true  holiness?  Will  there  be  no  chance  to  learn 
what  true  holiness  is?  The  Middle  State  must,  from  the  very 
nature  of  the  case,  be  a  school  of  sanctification. 

It  was  a  profound  saying  of  Henry  B.  Smith  that  eschatol¬ 
ogy  ought  to  be  Christologized.  It  is  greatly  to  be  regretted 
that  he  did  not  turn  his  own  attention  to  that  theme  and  give 
us  the  fruit  of  his  investigations.  Dr.  Schaff  gave  his  atten¬ 
tion  to  this  subject  many  years  ago  in  his  book  on  the  Sin 
against  the  Holy  Ghost,  and  has  added  not  a  few  valuable  hints 
in  his  later  publications. 

Christ  is  the  mediator  between  God  and  man  in  the  exercise 
of  His  offices  as  prophet,  priest,  and  king.  Those  who  passed  a 
few  years  in  this  world,  and  then  went  into  the  Middle  State 
and  have  been  there  for  centuries,  have  not  passed  beyond  the 
need  of  His  mediation.  The  interval  between  death  and  the 
judgment  has  its  lessons  and  its  training  for  them  as  well  as 
for  us.  The  prophetic  office  of  Christ  continues  to  those  who 
are  in  the  Middle  State.  After  His  own  death  He  went  to  the 
abode  of  the  departed  spirits,  and  preached  unto  them  his  gos¬ 
pel.  He  ascended  into  heaven,  taking  His  redeemed  with  Him. 
All  those  whom  He  has  purchased  with  His  blood  ascend  to  Him 
to  abide  with  Him.  The  redeemed  robber  is  not  the  only  one 
to  whom  He  has  something  to  say  in  the  Middle  State.  All 
believers  enter  His  school  and  are  trained  in  the  mysteries  of 
His  kingdom.  Those  mysteries  are  not  cleared  up  by  a  flash 
of  revelation;  they  are  revealed  as  the  redeemed  are  able  to 
apprehend  them  and  use  them.  It  is  improbable  that  Augus¬ 
tine,  Calvin,  and  Luther  will  be  found  in  the  same  class-room 
as  the  redeemed  negro  slave  or  the  babe  that  has  entered  heaven 
to-day.  The  fathers  and  doctors  of  the  Church  will  be  the 
teachers  of  the  dead,  as  they  taught  the  living. 

Christ’s  priestly  office  continues  for  them.  They  who  enter 
the  Middle  State  still  need  His  blood  and  righteousness.  Even 
if  they  commit  no  positive  sin  they  do  not  reach  positive  per¬ 
fection  until  their  sanctification  has  been  completed  in  the 
attainment  of  the  complete  likeness  of  Christ.  They  need  the 
robe  of  Christ’s  righteousness  until  they  have  gained  one  of 
their  own.  He  is  still  their  surety,  who  has  engaged  with  them 
and  with  God  to  present  them  perfect  in  the  last  great  day. 


PROGRESSIVE  SANCTIFICATION  AFTER  DEATH 


169 


But,  above  all,  Christ  is  a  king  in  the  Intermediate  State. 
Here  in  this  world  His  reign  is  only  partial ;  there  it  is  complete. 
Here  His  kingdom  is  interwoven  with  that  kingdom  of  dark¬ 
ness.  There  it  is  apart  from  all  evil  and  hindrance.  His  reign 
is  entire  over  His  saints,  and  they  are  being  prepared  by  Him 
for  the  advent  in  which  they  will  come  with  Him  to  reign  over 
the  world.  The  Church  is  chiefly  in  the  Intermediate  State. 
The  Church  on  earth  is  only  the  vestibule  of  it.  In  this  world 
we  have  learned  to  know  in  part  the  Messiah  of  the  Cross; 
there  in  the  Middle  State  the  redeemed  know  the  glory  of  the 
Messiah  of  the  Throne.  There  the  Church  is  in  its  purity  and 
complete  organization,  as  the  bride  of  the  Lamb.  There  Christ 
the  head  and  His  body  the  Church  are  in  blessed  unity.  We 
have  glimpses  in  the  Apocalypse  of  the  vast  assemblies  of  the 
saints  in  heaven  about  the  throne  of  the  Lamb.  And  the 
epistle  of  the  Hebrews  gives  us  a  picture  of  their  organized 
assembly  on  the  heights  of  the  heavenly  Zion.  It  is  important 
for  the  Church  on  earth  to  have  a  better  apprehension  of  its 
relations  with  the  Church  in  the  Middle  State.  The  Protestant 
branch  of  Christendom  is  weaker  here  than  the  Roman  Cath¬ 
olic.  It  is  high  time  to  overcome  this  defect,  for  it  is  not 
merely  agnosticism,  it  is  sin  against  the  mysteries  of  our  relig¬ 
ion.  The  modern  Church  ought  to  return  to  the  faith  of  the 
ancient  Church,  and  believe  in  the  “Communion  of  Saints.” 

We  have  developed  the  doctrine  of  the  Middle  State  in  the 
light  of  other  established  Christian  doctrines.  If  the  Church 
has  rightly  defined  these,  then  it  results  from  them  that  we 
must  take  that  view  of  the  Middle  State  that  they  suggest.  If 
we  are  not  prepared  to  do  this  we  cast  doubt  upon  the  legiti¬ 
macy  and  competency  of  these  doctrines.  We  confess  them 
inadequate  and  insufficient.  The  Calvinistic  system,  with  its 
principle  that  salvation  is  by  the  divine  grace  alone,  and  that 
this  grace  is  ever  prevenient,  enables  us  to  believe  that  the 
or  do  salutis  begins  for  all  who  are  saved  by  the  regeneration 
of  the  Holy  Spirit  in  this  life.  This  regeneration  begets  the 
seeds  of  a  perfect  Christian  life.  For  some  the  ordo  salutis 
makes  no  further  advance  in  this  life ;  for  others  it  advances  in 
different  degrees  and  stages ;  but  for  all  the  redeemed  the  Mid¬ 
dle  State  is  of  vast  importance  as  the  state  in  which  our 


L70 


THE  DEFENCE  OF  PROFESSOR  BRIGGS 


redemption  is  taken  up  where  it  is  left  incomplete  in  this  life 
and  then  carried  on  to  its  perfection.  This  view  of  the  Mid¬ 
dle  State  gives  it  its  true  theological  importance.  It  enables 
us  to  look  forward  with  hope  and  joy  for  an  entrance  upon  it. 
This  life  is  an  introduction  to  it. 

(7)  The  epistle  to  the  Hebrews  gives  us  a  glimpse  of  the 
Church  in  the  Middle  State  in  these  words : 

“  But  ye  are  come  unto  mount  Zion,  and  unto  the  city  of  the  living 
God,  the  heavenly  Jerusalem,  and  to  innumerable  hosts  of  angels  in  gen¬ 
eral  assembly  and  to  the  church  of  the  first-born  who  are  enrolled  in 
heaven  ;  and  to  God  of  all  the  Judge,  and  to  the  spirits  of  just  men  made 
perfect ;  and  to  Jesus  the  mediator  of  a  new  covenant,  and  to  the  blood 
of  sprinkling  that  speaketh  better  than  that  of  Abel  ”  (Heb.  xii.  22-24) . 

This  passage  is  cited  by  the  Westminster  divines  in  proof  of 
their  phrase  “  made  perfect  in  holiness.  ”  And  it  is  their  only 
proof  text.  Let  me  call  your  attention  again  to  the  principle 
laid  down  in  my  preliminary  objection,  that  even  if  the  West¬ 
minster  divines  meant  to  teach  the  doctrine  of  immediate  sanc¬ 
tification  at  death,  yet  if  the  passage  of  Holy  Scripture  on  which 
they  rely  for  proof  teach  a  different  doctrine,  we  are  obliged  by 
our  subscription  vows  and  by  the  doctrine  of  the  Westminster 
Standards  to  follow  Holy  Scripture  rather  than  the  Confession, 
and  you  must  judge  by  Scripture  rather  than  by  the  Confes¬ 
sion.  This  is  said  as  a  guide  to  those  who  may  not  be  convinced 
b y  the  argument  I  have  given  you  as  to  the  doctrine  taught  in 
our  Confession.  I  shall  now  endeavor  to  show  you  that  this 
passage  of  Holy  Scripture  does  not  teach  the  doctrine  of  imme¬ 
diate  sanctification  at  death,  (a)  Observe  that  we  have  in  this 
passage  a  scene  of  great  magnificence  and  glory,  an  assembly 
in  the  heavenly  Jerusalem  on  the  heavenly  heights  of  Zion,  of 
the  God  of  all,  Jesus  the  Mediator  of  the  new  covenant,  the 
general  assembly  of  innumerable  hosts  of  angels,  and  the 
church  of  the  first-born,  the  spirits  of  just  men  made  perfect. 
This  festal  assembly  in  the  new  Jerusalem  is  in  antithesis  to 
Sinai  blazing  and  quaking  with  terrors.  What  is  there  in  text 
or  in  context  to  suggest  that  this  is  a  scene  which  immediately 
follows  the  death  of  every  individual,  or  that  immediately  after 
death  every  believer  is  ushered  into  this  festal  assembly?  What 
is  there  in  text  or  context  to  imply  that  these  first-born  from 


PROGRESSIVE  SANCTIFICATION  AFTER  DEATH 


171 


among  men,  these  just  men,  these  spirits  perfected,  embrace  all 
believers  that  have  departed  this  life?  What  is  there  in  text 
or  in  context  to  imply  that  these  perfected  spirits  attain  their 
perfection  at  the  precise  moment  of  their  death?  The  prosecu¬ 
tion  will  have  to  prove  these  three  questionable  propositions  ere 
they  can  use  this  passage  as  an  evidence  that  all  believers  are 
immediately  sanctified  in  the  moment  of  their  departure  from 
this  life.  They  cannot  give  you  any  such  proof.  (6)  Listen  to 
the  opinions  of  distinguished  commentators  on  this  passage. 
Calvin  is  one  of  the  commentators  who  interpret  “  spirits 
of  just  men  made  perfect  ”  of  the  fulfilment  or  completion  of 
their  earthly  life.  If  John  Calvin,  the  father  of  Calvinists,  the 
prince  of  interpreters  among  the  Reformers,  be  correct  in  his 
interpretation,  this  passage  has  nothing  whatever  to  do  with  the 
question  whether  sanctification  is  immediate  or  progressive  after 
death.  Calvin,  however,  gives  his  opinion  on  sanctification  after 
death  in  his  comment  upon  another  passage,  where  he  says : 

“As,  however,  the  spirit  is  accustomed  to  speak  in  this  manner  in  ref¬ 
erence  to  the  last  coming  of  Christ,  it  were  better  to  extend  the  advance¬ 
ment  of  the  grace  of  Christ  to  the  resurrection  of  the  flesh.  For  although 
those  who  have  been  freed  from  the  mortal  body  do  no  longer  contend 
with  the  lusts  of  the  flesh,  and  are,  as  the  expression  is,  beyond  the  reach 
of  a  single  dart,  yet  there  will  be  no  absurdity  in  speaking  of  them  as 
in  the  way  of  advancement,  inasmuch  as  they  have  not  yet  reached  the 
point  at  which  they  aspire,  they  do  not  yet  enjoy  the  felicity  and  glory 
which  they  have  hoped  for,  and,  in  fine,  the  day  has  not  yet  shone  which 
is  to  discover  the  treasures  which  lie  hid  in  hope.  And  in  truth,  when 
hope  is  treated  of,  our  eyes  must  always  be  directed  forward  to  a  blessed 
resurrection  as  the  grand  object  in  view  ”  (Calvin  on  Phil.,  I.,  6). 

(c)  De  VVette  represents  many  commentators  who  think  that 
these  perfected  spirits  are  the  martyrs  of  the  old  dispensation, 
the  theme  of  Heb.  xi.,  of  whom  it  is  said : 

“  And  these  all,  having-had  witness  borne  to  them  through  their  faith,  re¬ 
ceived  not  the  promise,  God  having  provided  some  better  thing  concern¬ 
ing  us,  that  apart  from  us  they  should  not  be  made  perfect  ”  (verses 
89,  40). 

There  can  be  no  doubt  that  our  passage  is  based  upon  that 
passage,  not  only  because  of  the  term  “perfected,”  but  also  be¬ 
cause  of  the  “  better  thing  ”  which  appears  in  both  passages. 


172 


THE  DEFENCE  OF  PROFESSOR  BRIGGS 


The  “better  thing”  of  xi.  40,  is  referred  to  as  that  in  which 
Hebrew  and  Greek  martyrs  share  alike  and  at  the  same  time ; 
but  what  it  is,  is  not  distinctly  stated.  In  our  passage,  however, 
it  is  the  new  covenant  of  Jesus,  the  Mediator,  and  His  blood  of 
sprinkling.  Therefore  we  must  extend  the  reference  of  the 
perfected  spirits  to  the  Hew  Testament  martyrs  as  well  as  to 
the  Old  Testament  martyrs.  The  blood  of  sprinkling  gives  us 
the  clew  to  the  meaning  of  perfected  here.  As  Weiss  says,  the 
entire  usage  of  the  Epistle  refers  this  perfection  to  that  attained 
through  Christ  and  His  sacrifice.  We  are  not  to  think  of  moral 
perfection.  Let  us  recall  this  usage  for  a  few  moments.  There 
are  four  passages  which  teach  that  perfection  was  not  through 
the  Levitical  priesthood  or  the  sacrifices  prescribed  in  the  law 
(vii.  11,  19;  ix.  9;  x.  1).  It  is  then  said  in  antithesis  but  “by 
one  offering  he  [Christ]  hath  perfected  forever  them  that  are 
sanctified”  (x.  14).  The  “sanctified”  here  are,  as  the  present 
participle  shows,  to  use  the  words  of  Bishop  Westcott,  “all 
who  from  time  to  time  realize  progressively  in  fact  that  which 
has  been  potentially  obtained  for  them.”  The  perfected  spirits 
here  are  therefore  those  who  have  been  perfected  by  the  media¬ 
torial  intercession  and  cleansing  of  the  blood  of  Christ,  and  not 
those  who  have  attained  moral  perfection,  or  who  have  com¬ 
pleted  once  for  all  their  sanctification.  It  is  possible  that  the 
prosecution  understand  by  “  perfect  in  holiness  ”  just  this  cleans¬ 
ing  by  the  blood  of  Christ  and  this  equipment  in  the  righteous¬ 
ness  of  Christ.  If  this  be  their  meaning  I  shall  not  dispute 
their  doctrine,  so  far  as  it  goes.  But  the  doctrine  of  sanctifica¬ 
tion  which  is  in  Holy  Scripture  and  in  the  Westminster  Con¬ 
fession  is  vastly  higher  than  this.  It  is  not  merely  cleansing 
from  sin;  it  is  the  infusion  of  habits  of  holiness.  It  is  not 
merely  clothing  in  the  righteousness  of  Christ ;  it  is  the  habitual 
practice  of  holy  conduct  and  the  attainment  of  an  indelible 
holy  character. 

This  festal  assembly  of  angels  and  perfected  spirits  reminds 
us  of  several  similar  gatherings  in  the  Apocalypse  with  which 
this  passage  seems  to  be  in  parallelism : 

“  And  when  he  opened  the  fifth  seal,  I  saw  underneath  the  altar  the 
souls  of  them  that  had  been  slain  for  the  word  of  God,  and  for  the  testi¬ 
mony  which  they  held :  and  they  cried  with  a  great  voice,  saying,  How 


PROGRESSIVE  SANCTIFICATION  AFTER  DEATH 


173 


long,  O  Master,  the  holy  and  true,  dost  thou  not  judge  and  avenge  our 
blood  on  them  that  dwell  on  the  earth?  And  there  was  given  them  to 
each  one  a  white  robe  ;  and  it  was  said  unto  them,  that  they  should  rest 
yet  for  a  little  time,  until  their  fellow -servants  also  and  their  brethren, 
which  should  be  killed  even  as  they  were,  should  be  fulfilled  ”  (Rev.  vi. 
9-11). 

“And  I  saw,  and  behold,  the  Lamb  standing  on  the  mount  Zion,  and 
with  him  a  hundred  and  forty  and  four  thousand,  having  his  name,  and 
the  name  of  his  Father,  written  on  their  foreheads.  And  I  heard  a  voice 
from  heaven,  as  the  voice  of  many  waters,  and  as  the  voice  of  a  great 
thunder  :  and  the  voice  which  I  heard  was  as  the  voice  of  harpers  harping 
with  their  harps  :  and  they  sing  as  it  were  a  new  song  before  the  throne, 
and  before  the  four  living  creatures  and  the  elders  :  and  no  man  could 
learn  the  song  save  the  hundred  and  forty  and  four  thousand,  even  they 
that  had  been  purchased  out  of  the  earth.  These  are  they  which  are  not 
defiled  with  women  ;  for  they  are  virgins.  These  are  they  which  follow 
the  Lamb  whithersoever  he  goeth.  These  were  purchased  from  among 
men,  to  be  the  first  fruits  unto  God  and  unto  the  Lamb.  And  in  their 
mouth  was  found  no  lie  :  they  are  without  blemish  ”  (Rev.  xiv.  1-5) . 

“And  I  saw  thrones,  and  they  sat  upon  them,  and  judgment  was  given 
unto  them  :  and  I  saw  the  souls  of  them  that  had  been  beheaded  for  the 
testimony  of  Jesus,  and  for  the  word  of  God,  and  such  as  worshipped  not 
the  beast,  neither  his  image,  and  received  not  the  mark  upon  their  fore¬ 
head  and  upon  their  hand ;  and  they  lived,  and  reigned  with  Christ  a 
thousand  years.  The  rest  of  the  dead  lived  not  until  the  thousand  years 
should  be  finished.  This  is  the  first  resurrection.  Blessed  and  holy  is 
he  that  hath  part  in  the  first  resurrection  :  over  these  the  second  death 
hath  no  power ;  but  they  shall  be  priests  of  God  and  of  Christ,  and  shall 
reign  with  him  a  thousand  years  ”  (Rev.  xx.  4-6) . 

In  all  these  passages  the  martyrs  of  the  martyr  age  of  the 
Church  are  conceived  as  the  first  fruits,  or  the  first-born,  or  par¬ 
takers  of  the  first  resurrection.  They  have  been  faithful  and 
true  in  their  testimony  even  unto  death,  they  have  kept  them¬ 
selves  undefiled  and  without  blemish  from  contact  with  idol¬ 
atry,  they  are  virgins  as  the  bride  of  the  Messiah  and  have  not 
committed  fornication  with  heathen  gods,  they  are  clad  in  the 
white  robes  of  the  priests  of  God,  they  live  and  reign  with 
Christ  in  the  heavenly  Zion  throughout  the  complete  period  of 
His  mediatorial  reign,  they  share  the  Redeemer’s  blessedness 
and  glory.  But  for  all  this  it  is  not  said  that  they  cease  to 
progress  in  sanctification,  or  that  they  have  attained  moral 
perfection,  or  that  they  have  gained  that  Christlikeness  and 
Godlikeness  which  is  the  final  goal  of  redemption  and  which 


174 


THE  DEFENCE  OF  PROFESSOR  BRIGGS 


alone  can  come  according  to  the  apostle  John,  when  the  Messiah 
is  manifested  in  glory  at  His  second  advent  when  the  saints  are 
manifested  with  Him.  Then  for  the  first  time  the  rays  of  the 
sun  of  righteousness  will  shine  through  every  saint  and  not 
a  mote  will  be  found  in  those  sunbeams. 

Bishop  Westcott  gives  a  wise  word  here: 

“  The  perfection  (reXetucng)  of  the  individual  Christian  must  in  its 
fullest  sense  involve  the  perfection  of  the  Christian  society.  The  ‘per¬ 
fection’  which  Christ  gained  for  humanity  in  his  person  (ii.  10;  v.  9; 
vii.  28;  x.  1,  14)  must  be  appropriated  by  every  member  of  Christ.  In 
part  this  end  has  been  reached  by  the  old  saints  in  some  degree,  in  virtue 
of  Christ’s  exaltation  (c.  xii.  23),  but  in  part  it  waits  for  the  final 
triumph  of  the  Saviour,  when  all,  that  we  sum  up  in  confessing  the  truth 
of  the  resurrection  of  the  body,  is  fulfilled.  Primasius  interprets  the  gift 
of  the  white  robe  in  Apoc.  vi.  11  (ad.  40  c.)  of  that  endowment  of  love 
whereby  the  waiting  souls  gladly  accept  the  postponement  of  their  own 
consummation  ”  (382,  383) . 

The  invariable  statement  of  the  New  Testament  is  that  the 
second  advent  of  Jesus  Christ  is  the  goal  of  sanctification.  In 
addition  to  the  passages  already  considered,  I  would  refer  to 
Bom.  viii.  29,  30;  I.  Cor.  i.  8;  Eph.  iv.  13-16;  Phil.  i.  6;  I.  Thess. 
iii.  13;  v.  23;  II.  Peter  iii.  13,  14.  There  is  not  a  passage  in 
the  Bible  that  teaches  either  directly  or  indirectly  immediate 
sanctification  at  death,  or  that  the  completion  once  and  for  all 
of  the  holy  advancement  of  mankind  is  accomplished  in  a 
moment  of  time  by  a  magical  transformation  in  the  dying  hour. 
The  Christian  Church  has  always  taught  the  doctrine  of  the 
Middle  State  between  death  and  the  resurrection ;  and  of 
progress  in  the  holy  life  after  death,  in  that  state.  There  have 
been  those  who  taught  the  sleep  of  pious  souls.  Dr.  Birch 
seems  to  hold  that  opinion,  for  he  said  in  his  argument :  “  All 
dead  Christians  are  asleep.  When  we  are  asleep  we  show  the 
rest  which  consists  in  the  inaction  of  mind  and  body  ”  (Stenog¬ 
rapher’s  Report,  p.  631) .  Others  have  held  that  departed  spirits 
pass  a  dreamlike  existence,  with  powers  of  memory  of  the  life 
in  this  world,  and  of  anticipation  of  the  resurrection  of  the 
body  and  the  judgment-seat  of  God ;  but  without  real  activ¬ 
ity  or  change  of  condition  throughout  the  entire  period.  But 
these  opinions  have  always  been  rejected  by  the  orthodox. 


PROGRESSIVE  SANCTIFICATION  AFTER  DEATH 


175 


Those  passing  into  this  Middle  State  pass  into  a  higher  and 
more  active  condition  than  their  condition  in  this  world. 
What  then  is  the  nature  of  this  activity?  There  are  several 
different  opinions:  (1)  The  Roman  Catholic  doctrine  of  Purga¬ 
tory  teaches  that  those  who  enter  the  Middle  State  imperfect 
have  their  imperfections  removed — (a)  by  purgatorial  fires, 
which  are  of  the  nature  of  chastisement,  discipline,  and  pen¬ 
ance  for  sin;  (b)  by  the  efficacy  of  prayers  for  the  dead  and 
the  sacrifice  of  the  altar.  This  doctrine  of  purgatorial  fires  and 
sacrifices  for  the  dead  I  reject  in  common  with  the  reformers 
and  all  Protestants.  I  am  not  surprised  that  the  theologian 
who  speaks  in  Mr.  McCook  prefers  this  doctrine  of  Purga¬ 
tory  to  my  doctrine  of  Progressive  Sanctification  after  death ; 
for  he  will  have  magic  of  some  kind,  and  if  he  cannot  have  a 
magical  transformation  without  means,  he  will  take  a  magical 
transformation  by  the  use  of  means.  He  cannot  understand 
growth  in  holiness,  or  the  ethical  progress  of  holy  souls,  or  the 
transformation  which  takes  place  by  the  constant  influence  of 
the  spirit  of  Christ  upon  the  spirit  of  man. 

(2)  The  common  traditional  doctrine  among  Protestants  is 
that  believers  are  by  a  divine  transformation  immediately 
sanctified  and  judged  by  the  private  judgment  at  death  and 
thereafter  continue  in  a  perfectly  sanctified  condition.  This 
doctrine  is  set  forth  in  its  grossest  form  by  Cotton  Mather 
where  he  says: 

“Death  like  an  hot  and  strong  forge  has  run  out  of  these  holy  souls,  all 
the  dross  which  all  the  ordinances  and  all  the  calamities  formerly  em¬ 
ployed  upon  them,  had  left  remaining  in  them  ”  (“  Hades  Looked  Into,  ” 
p.  12.  1717). 

This  doctrine  makes  death  itself  the  purgatory,  and  represents 
death  as  more  potent  for  the  salvation  of  men  than  Bible  and 
Reason,  Church  and  Sacrament  all  combined.  This  doctrine 
lies  at  the  other  extreme  from  the  doctrine  of  Purgatory,  and 
is  equally  erroneous.  (3)  The  true  doctrine,  which  is  older 
than  Purgatory  and  which  has  ever  been  taught  by  the  soundest 
divines,  is  that  believers  after  death  advance  in  the  holy  life, 
and  make  progress  in  sanctification  until  they  attain  Clirist- 
likeness  and  perfect  purity  and  holiness  at  His  second  advent, 


176 


THE  DEFENCE  OF  PROFESSOR  BRIGGS 


when  body  and  soul  are  united  in  the  resurrection,  and  the 
whole  man  for  the  first  time  attains  complete  redemption  and 
glorification.  Sanctification  begins  in  justification  and  attains 
its  end  only  in  the  glorification  of  the  judgment  day. 

My  honored  teacher  and  friend  Dr.  Dorner,  now  in  the  com¬ 
pany  of  the  blessed,  gave  an  orthodox  statement  when  he  said : 

“As  for  the  pious,  intercourse  with  the  ungodly,  to  which  they  were 
subject  on  earth,  ceases  after  death  ;  they  suffer  nothing  more  from  them, 
not  even  temptation.  The  connection  of  believers  with  Christ  is  so  inti¬ 
mate  that  death  and  Hades  have  no  power  over  it.  On  the  contrary 
death  brings  them  an  increase  of  freedom  from  temptations  and  disturb¬ 
ances,  as  well  as  of  blessedness.  For  believers  there  is  no  more  punish¬ 
ment,  but  there  is  growth,  a  further  laying  aside  of  defects,  an  invigora- 
tion  through  the  greater  nearness  of  the  Lord  which  they  may  experience, 
and  through  the  more  lively  hope  of  their  consummation.”  .  .  .  “In 
this  life,  the  realities  of  the  sensuous  world  are  the  objects  of  sight,  the 
spiritual  world  is  the  object  of  faith.  Then,  when  the  physical  side  is 
wanting  to  the  spirit,  these  poles  will  be  reversed.  To  the  departed 
spirits  the  spiritual  world,  whether  in  good  or  evil,  will  appear  to  be  the 
real  existence  resting  on  immediate  evidence.  Since,  then,  such  internal 
soul-life  unveils  the  ground  of  the  soul  more  openly,  the  retiring  into 
self  has  for  believers  the  effect  of  purifying  and  educating.  It  serves  to 
obliterate  all  stains,  to  harmonize  the  whole  inner  being,  in  keeping 
with  the  good  disposition  brought  over  from  the  other  life  or  later  ac¬ 
quired  ;  thus  there  will  be  for  them  no  idle  waiting  for  the  judgment  but 
a  progressing  in  knowledge,  blessedness,  and  holiness,  in  communion 
with  Christ  and  the  heavenly  company”  (Dorner s  “Future  State,”  pp. 
106-108). 

This  is  the  orthodox  doctrine  of  progressive  sanctification 
after  death.  It  is  the  progressive  sanctification  after  death  of 
those  whose  sanctification  has  been  begun  in  this  world  by  re¬ 
generation  and  justification.  It  has  nothing  whatever  to  do  with 
the  doctrine  of  future  probation.  Those  who  hold  future  pro¬ 
bation  may  believe  this  doctrine  or  they  may  not  believe  it ;  for 
that  doctrine  has  to  do  with  the  regeneration  and  justification 
after  death  of  those  who  leave  this  world  impenitent,  unjusti¬ 
fied,  and  unregenerate.  This  doctrine  I  have  never  taught. 

When  I  indorse  the  doctrine  of  Dorner  as  regards  the  pro¬ 
gressive  sanctification  of  believers  after  death,  that  does  not 
imply  that  I  hold  with  him  that  those  who  die  impenitent  here 
and  go  to  the  world  of  the  lost  may  yet  be  redeemed  from  their 


PROGRESSIVE  SANCTIFICATION  AFTER  DEATH 


177 


lost  condition  in  the  Middle  State.  Many  holy  and  wise  men 
hold  that  doctrine,  and  God  forbid  that  I  or  any  other  should 
challenge  their  right  to  their  opinion.  O  that  I  could  agree  with 
them !  I  would  gladly  make  many  sacrifices  if  I  could  honestly 
indulge  in  such  a  comfortable  hope.  But  I  do  not,  I  cannot. 
I  exercise  my  right  in  disclaiming  this  opinion,  and  I  also  ex¬ 
ercise  my  right  of  Christian  charity  in  refusing  to  condemn 
them  as  enemies  of  Christ  on  account  of  it. 

The  doctrine  of  progressive  sanctification  after  death  raises 
many  important  and  difficult  questions  with  regard  to  the 
Middle  State,  which  I  am  no  more  bound  to  answer  than  are 
others.  I  have  stated  my  views  so  far  as  I  see  my  way  and  no 
farther.  I  see  that  believers  enter  the  Middle  State  imperfect, 
but  they  are  cleansed  by  the  blood  of  Christ  from  all  sin,  and 
are  therefore  sinless.  They  are  justified  by  the  grace  of  God,  and 
are  therefore  guiltless ;  they  are  by  the  immediate  influence  of 
the  divine  Spirit  raised  to  a  higher  and  nobler  life  and  more 
blessed  experience  of  redemption.  But  so  soon  as  the  redeemed 
soul  begins  its  active  practice,  conduct,  and  service  in  the 
Middle  State  the  question  presses  itself  upon  us  what  that  con¬ 
duct,  practice,  and  service  will  be.  Will  it  be  immediately  after 
and  forever  perfectly  holy,  or  will  there  still  remain  some  degree 
of  imperfection  in  their  practice  of  true  holiness?  To  those 
whose  ideas  of  holiness  are  low,  and  measured  only  by  inno¬ 
cence,  holy  intention,  and  resolution,  or  who  think  of  human 
models  of  a  holy  life,  it  may  not  seem  unnatural  that  believers 
should  at  once  become  alike  perfect  in  holiness  and  that  their 
practice  of  true  holiness  should  be  invariably  free  from  imper¬ 
fections  of  any  kind.  But  to  that  man  who  considers  how 
weak  and  imperfect  the  greatest  saints  and  martyrs  have  been 
when  they  left  this  world ;  how  far  from  perfection  the  best  of 
our  friends  have  been  when  they  left  us;  and  then  compare 
them  with  the  sublime  ideals  of  perfect  likeness  to  the  pure 
and  holy  Jesus,  entire  likeness  to  God  the  Father  in  perfect 
conduct,  it  will  seem  incredible  that  the  man  who  leaves  this 
world  so  imperfect  should  in  a  moment  of  time  leap  to  this 
perfection  of  practice.  We  need  some  very  clear  and  express 
teaching  in  Holy  Scripture  to  justify  such  a  belief.  And  we 
have  it  not. 

12 


178 


THE  DEFENCE  OF  PROFESSOR  BRIGGS 


It  is  to  be  feared  that  those  who  are  thinking  of  immediate 
sanctification  at  death  are  not  thinking  of  the  sanctification  set 
forth  in  Scripture;  but  of  a  merely  negative  sanctification,  such 
as  consists  in  the  absence  of  positive  sin.  Sanctification  em¬ 
braces  this  as  one  of  its  elements  certainly,  but  Christian  sanc¬ 
tification  is  vastly  more  than  this — it  is  the  positive  attainment 
of  perfect  practice.  It  is  not  only  the  non-commission  of  sin ; 
it  is  not  only  the  doing  of  holy  deeds  under  favorable  circum¬ 
stances  ;  it  is  not  merely  the  accumulation  of  holy  strength, 
purpose,  resolution,  and  character  such  as  make  it  easy  to  re¬ 
sist  sin ;  but  it  is  vastly  more  than  that — it  is  the  attainment 
of  the  masterful  experience  and  practice  of  Jesus  Christ,  so  that 
the  saint  rises  superior  to  every  temptation  or  any  possibility 
of  temptation;  and  attains  such  a  height  of  Christlikeness  and 
Godlikeness  that  it  will  be  absolutely  impossible  for  him  to  com¬ 
mit  sin,  so  to  say,  as  impossible  as  for  Christ  to  be  stained  with 
guilt  or  for  God  to  commit  iniquity,  and  in  which  the  entire 
character,  conduct,  and  practice  are  as  perfectly  holy  as  the 
character  and  conduct  of  God,  pure  as  Christ  is  pure,  perfect  as 
God  is  perfect.  Does  any  one  suppose  that  such  purity,  such 
perfection,  can  be  gained  in  the  moment  of  death?  Such  a 
sanctification  is  the  goal  of  that  progressive  sanctification  that 
begins  with  regeneration  in  this  life  and  is  carried  on  until  the 
resurrection  and  the  judgment  day. 

The  doctrine  that  has  been  unfolded  removes  difficulties  from 
many  other  doctrines,  (a)  It  enables  us  first  to  understand 
the  doctrine  of  the  universal  salvation  of  infants  and  incapables. 
It  seems  most  probable  that  the  God  of  all  grace  begins  their 
redemption  in  this  world  by  an  act  of  regeneration,  takes  it  up 
when  they  die  at  that  point,  and  carries  it  on  in  the  Middle 
State  through  all  the  subsequent  steps  of  sanctification.  Dr. 
Strong,  the  eminent  Baptist  divine,  says : 

“  Since  there  is  no  evidence  that  children  dying  in  infancy  are  regen¬ 
erated  prior  to  death,  either  with  or  without  the  use  of  external  means, 
it  seems  most  probable  that  the  work  of  regeneration  may  be  performed 
by  the  Spirit  in  connection  with  the  infant  soul’s  first  view  of  Christ  in 
the  other  world”  (A.  H.  Strong’s  “Systematic  Theology,”  p.  357.  Roch¬ 
ester,  1888). 

I  do  not  share  Dr.  Strong’s  opinion,  and  yet  I  decline  to  say 


PROGRESSIVE  SANCTIFICATION  AFTER  DEATH 


179 


that  lie  is  heterodox ;  for  the  reason  that  this  is  a  question  of 
speculative  theory  to  which  the  Bible  gives  us  no  decisive 
answer.  I  prefer  to  think  of  children  as  the  sweet  singer 
Ephraim  the  Syrian  thinks  of  them,  when  he  sings : 

“Our  God,  to  thee  sweet  praises  rise 
From  youthful  lips  in  Paradise ; 

From  boys  fair  robed  in  spotless  white, 

And  nourished  in  the  courts  of  light. 

In  arbors  they,  where  soft  and  low 
The  blessed  streams  of  light  do  flow : 

And  Gabriel,  a  shepherd  strong, 

Doth  gently  guide  their  flocks  along. 

There  honors  higher  and  more  fair 
Than  those  of  saints  and  virgins  are  ; 

God’s  sons  are  they  on  that  far  coast, 

And  nurselings  of  the  Ploly  Ghost.  ”  * 

How  can  we  think  of  such  a  mechanical  act,  such  a  magical 
change,  as  the  transformation  of  a  new-born  heathen  babe  into 
the  perfect  likeness  of  Jesus  Christ  in  the  very  moment  of 
death?  Ho  passage  of  Holy  Scripture  teaches  such  a  doctrine. 
(b)  This  doctrine  of  progressive  sanctification  after  death  also  re¬ 
lieves  the  doctrine  of  the  salvation  of  some  of  the  heathen  and 
of  the  heathen  world.  We  can  now  see  that  those  who  have 
been  enlightened  by  the  Logos  and  born  again  of  the  Holy 
Spirit,  among  any  of  the  religions  of  the  world,  having  the  root 
of  the  matter  in  them,  the  vital  tie  of  union  with  the  Deity, 
enter  the  Middle  State,  where  they  enjoy  all  the  training  they 
need  for  their  progressive  sanctification.  Israel  was  able  to  do 
his  mediatorial  work  for  the  nations  only  imperfectly  in  this 
world.  It  seems  probable  that  Israel  has  ever  carried  on  that 
mediatorial  work  as  the  religious  teacher  of  mankind,  when  the 
patriarchs  and  prophets,  the  sages  and  the  singers  received 
the  pious  heathen  into  the  school  of  holiness  that  lay  beyond  the 
grave.  And  so  it  is  with  the  ministry  of  the  Church.  The 
Church  has  only  in  part  carried  on  its  ministry  in  this  world. 
Its  greatest  ministry  has  ever  been  in  the  Middle  State,  in  train¬ 
ing  the  departed  babes  and  pious  heathen  in  the  holiness  and 

*See  article  “Infant  Salvation,”  by  G.  L.  Prentiss,  “Presbyterian  Re¬ 
view,”  iv.,  pp.  5G9  seq. 


180 


THE  DEFENCE  OF  PROFESSOR  BRIGGS 


blessedness  of  the  heavenly  state.  As  our  Lord  descended  into 
Hades  to  preach  the  gospel  there,  so  the  ancient  Church  conceived 
the  apostles  and  teachers  as  carrying  on  His  work.  There  is  an 
apostolic  succession  of  ministry  which  is  not  confined  to  this 
earth,  but  embraces  in  its  redemptive  scope  the  realm  of  the 
living  and  the  dead,  as  Christ  is  the  king  and  judge  of  the  liv¬ 
ing  and  the  dead,  and  His  Church  is  composed  of  the  living 
and  the  dead. 

I  believe  that  this  doctrine  of  progressive  sanctification  after 
death  is  of  great  practical  importance. 

(a)  It  fills  up  the  Middle  State  for  us  with  an  attractive, 
industrious,  holy  life,  a  progress  in  grace,  in  knowledge,  in 
holiness,  in  all  perfections.  We  realize  that  our  departed 
friends  are  not  asleep,  but  awake  in  the  most  active  of  lives. 
We  see  our  babes  growing  in  the  divine  life.  We  see  our  be¬ 
loved  in  the  companionship  of  prophets  and  apostles,  of  saints 
and  martyrs,  and  of  the  Holy  Jesus.  We  know  that  they  have 
not  forgotten  us,  that  they  are  praying  for  us,  and  are  waiting 
to  welcome  us  into  the  world  of  the  redeemed.  Death  loses  its 
terrors — and  becomes  only  a  gateway  into  a  better  country,  into 
a  brighter  and  purer  life. 

(b)  It  incites  to  holy  endeavor.  The  doctrine  of  immediate 
sanctification  at  death  cuts  the  nerves  of  Christian  endeavor 
and  dries  the  sap  of  holy  activity.  What  is  the  use,  says  the 
sluggish  soul,  in  my  striving  so  hard  for  holiness,  when  I  shall 
receive  it  all  in  an  instant  whatever  my  life  has  been?  All  I 
need  is  pardon,  to  get  into  the  kingdom  at  the  eleventh  hour. 
If  I  can  only  crawl  through  just  at  the  moment  the  gate  of 
death  creaks  on  its  hinges,  I  shall  be  as  holy  and  as  blessed  as 
the  greatest  martyr  and  the  most  self-sacrificing  of  missionaries. 

No  such  doctrine  was  known  to  the  martyr  age  of  the  Church. 
Those  who  hold  such  views  are  not  the  stuff  martyrs  are  made 
of.  There  would  have  been  no  martyrs,  there  would  have  been 
no  Church,  if  Christianity  had  built  on  such  a  foundation. 
Those  who,  with  Paul  and  John,  keep  their  eyes  fixed  upon  the 
perfection  of  God,  the  likeness  of  Christ,  and  make  it  their  one 
aim,  their  one  hope,  to  attain  that  perfection  and  likeness  at 
the  resurrection  and  the  advent — those  will  purify  themselves 
in  this  world  that  they  may  enter  the  next  world  with  as  great 


PROGRESSIVE  SANCTIFICATION  AFTER  DEATH 


181 


an  advancement  as  possible.  For  if  there  are  grades  of  service 
and  advancement  here,  there  will  be  still  greater  differences 
of  grade  there ;  and  the  honors  of  heaven  will  be  apportioned  in 
accordance  with  the  self-sacrificing  ministry  of  earth.  The  holy 
deeds  done  in  the  body  are  the  sacred  nucleus  of  the  holy  prac¬ 
tice  of  the  Middle  State. 

The  doctrine  of  progressive  sanctification  is  in  accordance 
with  the  laws  that  God  has  established  in  the  ethical  constitu¬ 
tion  of  man.  The  conscience  speaks  the  categorical  imperative 
in  the  first  dawn  of  the  moral  consciousness,  and  it  pronounces 
its  decision  in  the  light  of  the  training  that  men  receive  in  their 
successive  stages  of  advancement  in  morals. 

The  Church  and  the  Bible  give  their  potent  aid  to  the  con¬ 
science  in  the  ethical  elevation  of  humanity.  It  is  always, 
everywhere,  and  in  every  variety  of  form  and  education,  a 
training.  Shall  all  this  ethical  training  cease  at  death,  all  the 
varied  stages  of  progress  in  the  different  periods  of  life,  of 
culture,  of  racial  and  national  advancement,  be  reduced  to  a 
common  level  and  made  of  none  effect,  by  a  mighty  transfor¬ 
mation  that  will  deal  with  the  race,  father  and  child,  mother 
and  babe,  master  and  scholar,  self-sacrificing  missionary  and 
pagan  convert,  the  devoted  evangelist  and  the  thief  and  mur¬ 
derer  turning  in  his  last  hour  to  Christ  from  the  shadow  of  the 
gallows — all  as  one  undistinguishable  mass?  Such  a  doctrine 
strikes  a  deadly  blow  at  the  moral  nature  of  man,  the  ethical 
constitution  of  society,  the  historic  training  of  our  race,  and  the 
moral  government  of  God. 

The  doctrine  of  progressive  sanctification  after  death  har¬ 
monizes  Christian  faith  with  Christian  ethics,  and  both  of 
these  with  the  ethics  of  humanity  and  the  ethics  of  God.  It 
enables  us  to  comprehend  the  whole  life  of  man,  the  whole  his¬ 
tory  of  our  race  from  its  first  creation  until  the  day  of  doom, 
and  all  the  acts  of  God  in  creation  and  providence,  under  one 
grand  conception,  the  divine  sanctification  of  man. 

I  have  gone  over  all  the  Charges  made  against  the  doctrines 
set  forth  in  my  Inaugural  Address.  I  have  shown  that  the 
doctrines  taught  by  me  are  not  contrary  to  the  Westminster 
Confession,  but  that  they  are  in  accord  therewith ;  that  they  are 


182 


THE  DEFENCE  OF  PROFESSOR  BRIGGS 


not  irreconcilable  with  the  Scriptures,  but  are  the  product  of 
a  comprehensive  study  of  the  Scriptures.  They  set  forth  the 
doctrines  of  the  Bible,  which  have  been  made  of  none  effect 
by  the  traditions  of  men.  It  is  now  for  the  Presbytery  of 
blew  York  to  make  its  decision.  I  pray  God  you  may  make  no 
mistake,  but  that  you  may  stand  firmly  by  the  Word  of  God 
and  the  Constitution  of  our  Church  and  so  deliver  a  righteous 
verdict. 


Additional  Remarks  7nade  during  the  Delivery  of  the 

Argument  for  the  Defence. 

P.  xiv,  line  1,  after  “once  more”  insert  “the  words  with 
which  this  sentence  begins.” 

P.  103,  line  11,  after  “  irreverent  ”  insert  “  But  in  what  ancient 
language  do  the  prosecution  find  dotted  i’s  and  crossed  t’s?  In 
the  Aramaic  letters  wThich  took  the  place  of  the  original  He¬ 
brew  letters  we  find  the  little  yodh,  but  in  the  ancient  Hebrew 
alphabet  the  yodh  was  as  long  and  broad  as  any  other  letter. 
Possibly  the  prosecution  have  found  some  original  autograph 
unknown  to  the  rest  of  the  world  which  they  are  suddenly  to 
spring  upon  us.  We  shall  calmly  wait  for  its  disclosure.” 

P.  161,  line  22,  after  “whether”  insert  “the  prosecution  have 
any  right  to  force  their  interpretation  upon  me.  I  have  a  right 
to  my  interpretation  even  if  you  think  it  a  wrong  one.  The 
prosecution  have  no  more  legal  right  to  their  interpretation 
even  if  it  be  the  right  one.  It  is  plainly  a  difference  of  inter¬ 
pretation  ;  for  the  prosecution  put  their  interpretation  into  the 
charge,  by  inserting  the  two  little  words  ‘at  once.’  They 
have  no  right  to  make  the  Westminster  Standards  responsible 
for  their  ‘at  once.’  They  have  no  right  to  exact  of  me  that  I 
should  say  ‘at  once,’  or  to  condemn  me  because  I  refuse  to 
make  this  addition  to  our  Standards.  But  even  granting  that 
you  have  a  right  to  insist  upon  the  insertion  of  ‘at  once  ’  into 
our  Standards  and  to  claim  that  the  interpretation  contained  in 
these  words  is  the  true  interpretation,  is  this.”  Omit  “the” 
before  “  doctrine  ”  and  “  is  ”  between  “  death  ”  and  “  an  essen¬ 
tial”  and  insert  an  interrogation  mark  after  “Westminster 
Confession  ”  in  the  clause  beginning  with  “  the  doctrine”  and 
closing  with  “  Confession ;”  lines  22,  23. 

P.  175,  line  16,  after  “means”  insert  “in  Purgatory.” 


Concluding  Remarks  upon  the  Neiv  Matter  introduced  by 
the  Prosecution  into  their  Argument  in  Rebuttal. 

Mr.  Moderator,  Ministers  and  Elders  of  the  Pres¬ 
bytery  of  New  York: 

The  Biblical  scholar  (and  may  I  also  say,  the  historian?)  of 
the  prosecution  has  spoken.  He  has  done  precisely  what  the 
defendant,  prior  to  the  delivery  of  the  argument  for  the  defence, 
intimated  to  the  Presbytery  that  he  would  do.  He  has  disre¬ 
garded  the  evidence  as  set  forth  in  the  Amended  Charges  and 
submitted  to  the  Presbytery,  and  has  introduced  a  large  amount 
of  new  evidence.  He  has  ignored  the  case  as  presented  by  the 
real  chairman  of  the  prosecution,  as  well  as  by  the  ostensible 
chairman,  in  their  opening  arguments.  He  has  not  considered 
the  argument  for  the  defence  as  worthy  of  rebuttal.  He  has 
introduced  such  a  large  amount  of  new  matter  as  to  make  an 
entirely  new  case.  The  ostensible  chairman  of  the  prosecution 
promised  that  the  prosecution  would  introduce  no  new  matter. 
But  this  promise,  like  many  others  from  that  same  source,  was 
a  disguise  of  its  fulfilment.  Dr.  Lampe  has  done  precisely 
what  was  promised  and  agreed  he  should  not  do.  He  has 
trampled  under  foot  the  rights  of  the  defendant,  the  precedents 
which  govern  all  trials,  and  the  rulings  of  this  court.  The  in¬ 
justice  and  the  wrong  have  been  done.  The  court  has  per¬ 
mitted  them.  The  argument  goes  up  on  the  Stenographical 
Report  to  the  higher  courts  to  the  injury  of  the  defence.  What 
shall  the  defendant  do  under  the  circumstances?  Shall  he 
claim  the  right  to  make  a  new  argument  against  this  new  case? 
He  might  justly  do  so.  And  yet  the  time  already  given  to  this 
trial  has  been  so  extended,  the  strength  and  patience  of  the 
court  have  been  so  strained,  the  health  of  some  of  the  dearest 
friends  of  the  defendant  has  become  so  imperilled,  and  his  own 
vigor  is  so  much  impaired,  that  he  does  not  hesitate  to  say  that 
he  would  rather  be  convicted  than  undertake  a  new  argument  at 
this  stage.  It  has  come  to  this  pass,  that  members  of  the  court 


CONCLUDING  REMARKS 


185 


are  saying,  If  such  things  can  be  done  in  the  name  of  the  Pres¬ 
byterian  Church  in  the  United  States  of  America,  it  costs  more 
to  be  a  Presbyterian  than  it  is  worth. 

It  is  necessary,  however,  that  I  should  say  a  few  words. 

(1)  The  new  evidence.  The  new  evidence  introduced  by  the 
prosecution  ought  to  have  been  offered  as  rebuttal  evidence,  in 
accordance  with  the  Book  of  Discipline,  §  23 ;  so  that  the  de¬ 
fendant  might  test  it  in  his  defence.  Inasmuch  as  this  was 
not  done  and  the  defendant  has  excepted  to  it,  you  cannot  law¬ 
fully  allow  it  or  consider  it.  But  as  many  members  of  this 
court  are  not  accustomed  to  sit  as  judges  and  jurors,  and  we 
have  no  presiding  judge  who  can  give  a  final  statement  of  the 
case  for  your  guidance,  let  me  say  in  brief : 

(a)  That  the  new  evidence  from  Luther  and  Calvin  is  irrele¬ 
vant.  It  does  not  show  that  the  great  reformers  held  to  the 
modern  dogma  of  inerrant  original  autographs.  Let  me  cite 
from  Kostlin,  the  most  competent  authority  on  Luther  now 
living.  With  the  permission  of  the  court  and  to  save  my 
strength,  I  will  ask  my  friend  Dr.  Brown  to  read  this  and 
another  extract  for  me.  Will  Dr.  Brown  please  read  the  trans¬ 
lation  from  the  German? 

Dr.  Brown  :  The  book  is  entitled  “  Kostlin’s  Luther’s  Tlieol- 
ogie.”  I  translate  from  the  second  volume,  page  280: 

“But  especially  there  meet  us  utterances  (of  Luther),  which  belong 
here,  on  passages  of  Scripture  about  which  the  question  arose,  whether 
the  one  does  not  testify  against  the  truthful  contents  of  the  other.  Now, 
here  we  have  carefully  to  distinguish  between  testimonies  of  the  Scrip¬ 
ture  concerning  the  truth  of  salvation  (Heilswahrheit) — which  forms,  for 
Luther,  the  object  of  religious  belief — and  external  historical  state¬ 
ments.  As  far  as  concerns  the  former  there  is  conceivable  for  Luther  no 
contradiction  whatever,  and  nothing  incorrect  in  the  canonical  Scrip¬ 
tures  which  have  proceeded  from  the  Spirit.  .  .  .  But  the  case  is  dif¬ 
ferent  with  declarations  of  the  second  kind.  Here,  too,  he  is  indeed  con¬ 
cerned,  with  conscientiousness  and  acuteness,  to  remove  the  difficulties 
(die  Anstosse  zu  beseitigen) .  The  Commentary  on  Genesis  offers  many 
examples  of  this.  .  .  .  But  even  contradictions,  in  which  the  evangel¬ 
ists  seem  to  be  involved  with  one  another,  as  in  regard  to  the  time  of 
the  cleansing  of  the  Temple,  or  in  regard  to  the  place  of  the  denial  of 
Peter,  occasion  him  no  great  concern  (machen  ihm  docli  keine  grosse 
Sorge)  ;  in  the  second  case  he  says  of  John,  that  he  makes  confusion  here 
(dieser  mache  hier  eine  Verwirrung)  ;  that  perhaps  he  has  not  observed 


186 


THE  DEFENCE  OF  PROFESSOR  BRIGGS 


the  exact  order  in  speaking,  but  as  he  declares,  not  much  depends  on 
such  questions.  .  .  .  Finally  he  does  not  shrink  from  explicitly  recog¬ 
nizing  plain  mistakes ;  and  indeed  he  finds  such  mistakes  in  the  mouth 
of  a  man  whom  he  expressly  holds  to  speak  full  of  the  Holy  Spirit, 
namely,  in  the  speech  of  Stephen.  According  to  Stephen  (Acts  of  the 
Apostles  vii.  2)  Abraham  was  called  while  still  in  Mesopotamia — ac¬ 
cording  to  Moses,  in  Haran ;  Luther  is  aware  that  a  double  call  is  on  this 
account  commonly  assumed ;  but  he  does  not  seek  this  solution ;  it  has 
rather  (he  says)  happened  with  Stephen,  as  it  often  happens  when  we 
cite  something  casually,  without  carefully  regarding  all  the  circum¬ 
stances,  while  Moses,  on  the  other  hand,  narrates  as  a  historian.” 

Dr.  Briggs  :  (b)  The  evidence  from  divines  of  the  17th 
century,  adduced  by  Dr.  Lampe,  was  adduced  to  show  that 
they  held  to  verbal  inspiration  and  dictation;  he  has  not 
shown  that  they  teach  that  there  are  no  errors  in  Holy  Scrip¬ 
ture,  or  that  the  original  autographs  were  inerrant.  The  ex¬ 
tent  of  Dr.  Lampe’s  knowledge  of  the  Westminster  Divines 
may  be  measured  by  his  statement  that  John  Ball  “was  one  of 
the  leading  Westminster  divines.”  John  Ball  is  an  author 
whom  I  greatly  admire,  and  whose  writings  are  ever  at  hand 
in  my  study;  but  he  was  not  a  Westminster  divine.  He  died 
October  20th,  1640.  The  Westminster  Assembly  convened  July 
1st,  1643.  In  order  to  know  the  views  of  the  Westminster  di¬ 
vines  something  more  is  necessary  than  a  resort  to  a  few  pas¬ 
sages  of  their  works  under  the  guidance  of  a  dogmatician  who 
is  himself  a  tyro  in  that  department.  Let  me  quote  from  Alex¬ 
ander  F.  Mitchell,  the  best  authority  on  the  Westminster 
divines  now  living,  from  his  introduction  to  his  published 
minutes  of  the  Westminster  Assembly.  Will  Dr.  Brown 
please  read? 

Dr.  Brown:  I  read  from  the  minutes  of  the  Westminster 
Assembly,  Introduction,  page  49  seq. : 

“If  any  chapter  in  the  Confession  was  more  carefully  framed  than 
another,  it  was  this,  ‘of  the  Holy  Scripture.  ’  It  formed  the  subject  of 
repeated  and  earnest  debate  in  the  House  of  Commons  as  well  as  in  the 
Assembly ;  and  I  think  it  requires  only  to  be  fairly  examined  to  make  it 
appear  that  its  framers  were  so  far  from  desiring  to  go  beyond  their 
predecessors  in  rigor,  that  they  were  at  more  special  pains  than  the 
authors  of  other  Confessions.  1.  To  avoid  mixing  up  the  question  of  the 
canonicity  of  particular  books  with  the  question  of  their  authorship, 
where  any  doubt  at  all  existed  on  the  latter  point.  Any  one  who  will 


CONCLUDING  REMARKS 


187 


take  the  trouble  to  compare  their  list  of  the  canonical  books  with  that 
given  in  the  Belgian  Confession  or  in  the  Irish  Articles,  may  satisfy 
himself  that  they  held,  with  Dr.  Jamieson,  that  the  authority  of  these 
books  ‘does  not  depend  on  the  fact  whether  this  prophet  or  that  wrote  a 
particular  book  or  parts  of  a  book  ;  whether  a  certain  portion  was  derived 
from  the  Elohist  or  the  Jehovist ;  whether  Moses  wrote  the  close  of 
Deuteronomy,  Solomon  was  the  author  of  Ecclesiastes,  or  Paul  of  the 
Epistle  to  the  Hebrews ;  but  on  the  fact  that  a  prophet,  an  inspired 
man  .  .  .  wrote  them,  and  that  they  bear  the  stamp  and  impress  of  a 
divine  origin.  ’  2.  To  leave  open  all  reasonable  questions  as  to  the  mode 

and  degree  of  inspiration  which  could  consistently  be  left  open  by  those 
who  accepted  the  Scriptures  as  the  infallible  rule  of  faith  and  duty.  3. 
To  refrain  from  claiming  for  the  text  such  absolute  purity,  and  for  the 
Hebrew  vowel  points  such  antiquity,  as  was  claimed  in  the  Swiss  For¬ 
mula  Concordice ,  while  asserting  that  the  originals  of  Scripture  are,  after 
the  lapse  of  ages,  still  pure  and  perfect  for  all  those  purposes  for  which 
they  were  given.  Not  even  the  text  they  adduce  in  proof  of  this  state¬ 
ment  will  suffice  to  fix  down  their  meaning  to  the  sense  which  Lee  and 
others  have  sought  to  impose  on  it ;  for  Liglitfoot,  who  in  matters  criti¬ 
cal  was  regarded  as  one  of  their  highest  authorities,  has  expressly  stated 
that  the  words  one  iota  or  one  tittle  are  by  our  Lord  himself  used  inter¬ 
changeably  with  ‘  one  of  the  least  of  these  commandments ;  ’  and  that 
his  meaning  in  both  cases  is  not  that  no  letter  or  part  of  a  letter  should 
be  lost  or  corrupted,  but  that  not  a  particle  of  the  divine  meaning  should 
be  so  ‘eousque  in  corruptam  immortal itatem  ac  puritatem  textus  sacri 
asserere  et  non  peritura  sit  ulla  sensus  sacri  particula  a  capite  legis  ad 
calcem.  ’  To  the  same  effect  Vines  says  that  the  Scripture  stands  not  in 
cortice  verborum,  but  in  medulla  sensus;  and  shows  that  he  not  only  knew 
of  varice  lectiones  in  the  Hebrew,  but  held  that  some  in  the  margin  were 
‘truer  ’  than  those  in  the  text.  Tuckney  expresses  himself  in  similar 
terms,  and  so  does  Ussher  in  his  famous  letter  to  Cappellus.  4.  To  de¬ 
clare  that  the  sense  of  Scripture  in  any  particular  place  is  not  manifold, 
but  one,  and  so  raise  an  earnest  protest  against  that  system  of  spiritualiz¬ 
ing  the  text  which  had  been  too  much  countenanced  by  some  of  the  most 
eminent  of  the  fathers,  and  many  of  the  best  of  the  Mystics.  ”  * 

Dr.  Briggs  :  The  passage  from  Rutherford,  as  cited  in  my 
evidence,  speaks  for  itself.  It  may  be  colored  and  warped  by 
the  glasses  through  which  Dr.  Lampe  and  his  guide  look  at  it; 
but  he  cannot  color  it  and  warp  it  for  you.  I  have  the  book  in 
my  hand,  and  I  could  read  the  whole  passage,  but  it  would  take 
twenty  minutes  to  do  it.  I  have  gone  over  it  again  very  care- 


*  Minutes  of  Westminster  Assembly,  1644-1649  (Introduction,  Alex.  F. 
Mitchell,  pp.  49  seq.). 


188 


THE  DEFENCE  OF  PROFESSOR  BRIGGS 


fully,  and  the  statements  of  the  passages  which  I  have  given 
in  the  evidence  adduced  are  exactly  as  they  are  in  the  book. 

I  shall  cite  a  few  words  from  John  Ball  and  from  John 
White.  Let  me  saj^  that  I  introduce  this  evidence  because  the 
prosecution  have  introduced  new  evidence  and  it  is  necessary 
for  me  to  rebut  it;  but  all  of  the  evidence  that  I  am  using  in 
rebuttal  was  in  the  evidence  which  I  introduced,  with  the  ex¬ 
ception  of  that  passage  from  Kostlin  which  Dr.  Brown  has 
read.  All  the  rest  was  cited  by  me  as  parts  of  my  evidence 
at  the  beginning. 

A  few  words  from  John  Ball.  Dr.  Lampe  cited  and  read 
from  John  Ball  a  question  with  reference  to  Holy  Scripture: 

“  Q.  How  may  it  be  proved  that  those  books  are  the  word  of  God  im¬ 
mediately  inspired  by  the  Holy  Ghost  to  the  prophets  and  apostles? 

“A.  First,  By  testimony  of  the  Church;  secondly,  Constancy  of  the 
saints ;  thirdly,  Miracles  wrought  to  confirm  the  truth ;  and  fourthly,  By 
the  antiquity  thereof.” 

And  he  stopped  there,  as  if  these  were  the  evidences  adduced 
by  John  Ball  for  Holy  Scripture.  He  overlooked  the  fact  that 
John  Ball  proceeds  very  much  in  the  same  way  as  the  West¬ 
minster  Confession  proceeds.  The  next  question  is : 

“Q.  How  else? 

“A.  By  the  stile,  efncacie,  sweet  consent,  admirable  doctrine,  excel¬ 
lent  end,  and  the  witnesse  of  the  Scripture  itselfe  ”  (p.  15) . 

And  then  finally  he  goes  on : 

“  Q.  These  reasons  may  convince  any,  be  he  never  so  obstinate,  but  are 
they  sufficient  to  perswade  the  heart  hereof? 

“  A.  No  ;  the  testimony  of  the  Spirit  is  necessary,  and  onely  all  sufficient 
for  this  purpose  ”  (p.  28) . 

How  let  me  read  several  passages  additional  further  on: 

“Concerning  the  Scripture,  we  must  put  difference  betweene  the  doc¬ 
trine  therein  contained,  and  the  writing ;  for  the  signe  is  for  the  sense, 
and  the  knowledge  and  faith  of  both  is  not  alike  necessary  ”  (p.  9) . 

And  again : 

“  The  Spirit  of  God  doth  assuredly  perswade  our  consciences  that  the 
Scriptures  are  of  God,  by  enlightning  our  eyes  to  behold  the  light,  writ- 


CONCLUDING  REMARKS 


189 


ing  the  Law  in  our  hearts,  sealing  up  the  promises  to  our  consciences, 
and  causing  us  sensibly  to  feele  the  effects  thereof  ”  (p.  29) . 

“The  testimonie  of  the  Spirit  doth  not  teach  and  assure  us  of  the  Let¬ 
ters,  syllables,  or  severall  words  of  holy  Scripture,  which  are  onely  as  a 
vessel,  to  carry  and  convey  that  heavenly  light  unto  us,  but  it  doth  seale 
in  our  hearts  the  saving  truth  contained  in  those  sacred  writings  into 
what  language  soever  they  be  translated.  The  Spirit  doth  not  lead  them 
in  whom  it  dwelleth,  absolutely,  and  at  once  into  all  truth,  but  into  all 
truth  necessary  to  salvation,  and  by  degrees,  so  that  holy  men  partakers 
of  the  same  Spirit,  may  erre  in  many  things,  and  dissent  one  from  an¬ 
other  in  matters  not  fundamental  ”  (pp.  30,  31) . 

A  passage  of  more  importance,  from  John  White,  which 
was  introduced  by  myself,  and  also  by  the  prosecution,  in  evi¬ 
dence,  is: 

“  Nay,  if  he  should  goe  a  steppe  further  and  beleeve  any  thing  that  is 
written  in  the  Scriptures,  for  the  Testimony  of  the  Scriptures,  yet  still 
he  beleeves  upon  an  Humane  testimony,  because  he  beleeves  the  Scrip¬ 
tures  themselves  upon  Humane  testimony,  as  upon  the  generall  consent 
of  the  Church  which  receives  the  Scripture  as  the  Word  of  God ;  or 
upon  the  probability  and  reasonableness  ;  or  of  the  things  therein  deliv¬ 
ered,  lastly,  upon  the  observation  of  the  Truth  of  those  holy  writings  in 
most  things,  which  makes  them  beleeved  to  be  true  in  all.  For  the 
Assent  unto  one  thing  for  another,  is  built  upon  that,  to  which  we  first 
give  our  Assent.  As  a  stone  in  a  wall  though  it  lies  immediately  upon 
that  stone  that  is  next  under  it ;  yet  is  indeed  supported  by  the  founda¬ 
tion  which  beares  up  all  the  building”  (White’s  “A  Way  to  the  Tree 
of  Life,  ”  1647,  p.  98) . 

Now  this  seems  to  me  to  express  exactly  the  attitude  of  this 
prosecuting  committee  over  against  myself ;  for  I  build  entirely 
upon  the  Divine  testimony  in  the  Holy  Scripture. 

I  could  go  over  all  this  evidence  and  show  you  that  it  is 
irrelevant;  but  what  is  the  use?  The  prosecution  live  in  the 
cavern  of  a  dogmatic  faith,  and  everything  they  read  in  the 
Bible,  or  in  the  Confession,  or  in  Christian  writers,  is  seen  in 
that  cavernous  light.  They  are  as  blind  as  owls  and  bats  to 
the  truth  of  history  and  the  facts  of  the  world  of  reality.  If 
any  of  you  see  as  they  do,  I  greatly  regret  it. 

(2)  The  new  matter.  I  have  specified  this  new  matter,  in 
part,  in  the  exceptions  which  I  have  filed.  It  is  impossible  for 
me  to  review  it  without  taking  a  large  amount  of  your  time, 
and  in  my  judgment,  to  little  purpose.  I  shall  briefly  refer  to 


190 


THE  DEFENCE  OF  PROFESSOR  BRIGGS 


these  matters,  (a)  A  long  argument  has  been  made  on  verbal 
inspiration  and  the  theory  of  dictation  and  the  inspiration  of 
the  concept  only.  But  there  is  no  charge  against  my  theory 
of  inspiration.  Charge  III.  is  not  that  I  deny  verbal  inspira¬ 
tion,  or  that  I  claim  that  only  the  concept  is  inspired,  but  defi¬ 
nitely  this  and  this  alone,  that  I  teach  that  k£  errors  may  have 
existed  in  the  original  text  of  the  Holy  Scripture  as  it  came 
from  its  authors.”  It  is  not  claimed  in  the  Charge  that  I  teach 
that  errors  did  exist,  or  must  have  existed  in  the  original  text 
of  the  Holy  Scripture  as  it  came  from  its  authors.  This  I  have 
repudiated.  I  have  declined  to  say  whether  the  original  auto¬ 
graphs  were  inerrant  or  not.  That  is  the  extent  of  my  fault  as 
stated  in  the  Charge  and  so  stated  in  my  defence.  This  alone 
is  on  trial  before  you.  When  the  prosecution  go  further  than 
this  in  their  argument  and  charge  me  with  teaching  that  we 
have  an  errant  Bible,  and  so  endeavor  to  envelop  the  real 
offence  in  a  cloud  of  prejudice  against  me  on  other  matters, 
they  are  guilty  of  inexcusable  misrepresentation  of  me,  and  of 
a  gross  offence  against  the  intelligence  of  the  court,  by  making 
a  more  serious  charge  than  that  offered  for  probation. 

(b)  When  Dr.  Lampe  argues  that  I  teach  the  errancy  of 
Jesus,  he  argues  on  a  much  more  serious  matter  than  any  con¬ 
tained  in  the  Charges,  and  in  such  a  way  which  shows  that  he 
knows  but  little  of  the  true  doctrine  of  the  personality  of  our 
adorable  Saviour.  I  am  not  surprised  that  a  man  who  can 
speak  of  the  hours  of  prayer  and  religious  meditation  as  lonely 
hours  should  know  so  little  of  Jesus  Christ.  When  we  are 
apart  from  the  world  and  present  with  Jesus  we  have  compan¬ 
ionship  which  is  richer  and  more  glorious  than  that  of  all  the 
world  beside.  My  argument  was  simply  this,  that  Jesus  never 
said  that  Moses  wrote  the  Pentateuch  or  that  Isaiah  wrote  all 
of  the  book  which  bears  his  name ;  and  that  He  was  not  obliged 
to  correct  all  the  errors  of  his  contemporaries.  This  argument 
the  prosecution  did  not  attempt  to  rebut,  they  did  not  refer  to 
it;  but,  in  place  of  rebuttal,  charge  me  with  a  more  serious 
error  than  anything  contained  in  the  Charge.  How  can  this 
court  look  upon  such  conduct  with  any  degree  of  toleration  ? 

(c)  Almost  the  entire  argument  of  Dr.  Lampe  is  directed 
against  the  views  of  rationalistic  critics,  with  the  implication 


CONCLUDING  REMARKS 


191 


that  I  am  responsible  for  their  opinions.  The  prosecution  had 
in  their  hands  my  printed  argument  on  the  authorship  of  the 
Pentateuch  and  the  book  of  Isaiah.  They  have  not  paid  the 
slightest  attention  to  anything  in  my  argument.  As  I  stated 
at  the  close  of  my  argument  on  the  Pentateuch,  I  defend  the 
historicity  of  the  Pentateuch  no  less  than  the  prosecution ;  and 
I  defend  it  on  better  grounds  and  with  far  greater  hopes  of 
success  when  I  recognize  parallel  narratives  of  the  same  event 
in  the  history  contained  in  the  Pentateuch.  The  court  should 
recognize  all  this  irrelevant  argument  and  rule  it  out  of  court, 
and  confine  themselves  to  the  specific  matters  contained  in 
Charges  IV.  and  V.,  and  determine  whether  a  man  who  denies 
the  Mosaic  authorship  of  the  Pentateuch  and  asserts  that  Isaiah 
did  not  write  half  the  book  which  bears  his  name,  has  taken 
a  contra-confessional  position  and  is  thereby  ruled  out  from  the 
Presbyterian  Church. 

(3)  I  have  taken  exception  to  much  the  greater  port  ion  of 
the  argument  of  Dr.  Lampe,  as  in  no  sense  a  rebuttal,  but  a 
new  case  against  me.  It  is  impracticable  for  me  to  go  over  all 
the  argument  at  this  time.  Let  me  take  one  glaring  specimen. 
He  puts  in  my  mouth  (p.  16)  the  statement:  “ Newman  could 
not  find  certainty  and  God  in  the  Bible  striving  never  so  hard, 
but  found  a  place  among  the  faithful  through  the  institutions 
of  the  Church.  Martineau  could  not  find  God  in  the  Bible  but 
did  find  Him  enthroned  in  his  own  soul.”  This  is  a  misrepre¬ 
sentation.  The  passages  from  the  Inaugural  referred  to  (pp.  25, 
27)  say  no  such  thing.  They  say :  “  Martineau  could  not  find 
divine  authority  in  the  Church,  or  the  Bible ;  but  did  find  God 
enthroned  in  his  own  soul”  (p.  27).  “Newman,  who  could  not 
reach  certainty,  striving  never  so  hard,  through  the  Bible  or 
the  Reason,  but  who  did  find  divine  authority  in  the  institu¬ 
tions  of  the  Church”  (p.  25). 

I  did  not  say  that  Newman  and  Martineau  did  not  find  God 
in  the  Bible.  That  statement  the  prosecution,  and  they  alone, 
are  responsible  for.  To  find  God  is  one  thing,  to  find  divine 
authority  in  that  in  which  we  find  God,  is  another  and  a  differ¬ 
ent  thing.  The  difficulty  with  the  prosecution  is  that  they 
seem  incapable  of  making  distinctions  and  seeing  differences  in 
the  fields  of  theology  which  are  so  unfamiliar  to  them. 


192 


THE  DEFENCE  OF  PROFESSOR  BRIGGS 


It  is  not  necessary  to  first  accept  the  doctrine  of  the  inspira¬ 
tion  of  Holy  Scripture,  and  the  divine  authority  of  Holy  Scrip¬ 
ture,  before  we  can  find  God  and  His  Christ  in  the  Scriptures. 
For  most  people  this  order  is  reversed.  We  find  God  and 
Christ  in  the  Bible  before  the  question  of  the  inspiration  and 
authority  of  the  Bible  are  raised  to  us ;  and  in  fact  most  men 
accept  the  Bible  as  the  Holy  Book  of  God  just  for  this  reason, 
that  they  have  found  God  and  Christ  in  it  and  through  it. 
But  if  some  men  like  Martineau  have  found  God  in  the  Bible 
without  going  on  to  the  further  stage  of  recognizing  the  divine 
authority  and  inspiration  of  Holy  Scripture,  shall  we  say  on 
that  account  that  they  did  not  find  God  in  the  Bible?  I  de¬ 
cline  to  say  it.  You  may  say  so  if  you  can,  but  you  have  no 
right  to  convict  me  of  heresy  because  I  refused  to  share  your 
opinion  in  this  particular.  To  know  God  and  the  Christ  He 
has  sent  is  the  Christian  religion,  even  if  men  doubt  the  in¬ 
spiration  of  Holy  Scripture  or  deny  the  infallibility  of  the 
Bible. 

(4 )  Finally,  let  me  call  your  attention  to  the  fact  that  this 
afternoon  Dr.  Lampe  has  reiterated  the  argument  on  the  seventh 
Charge  that  you  threw  out,  and  has  reiterated  it  in  a  most 
offensive  form.  Do  you  allow  a  committee  claiming  to  he  ap¬ 
pointed  by  this  Presbytery,  and  to  represent  you,  to  override  a 
ruling  which  you  have  distinctly  made?  I  call  for  the  justice 
of  the  court.  I  appeal  to  the  sense  of  honor  of  the  judges.  In 
this  argument  on  the  seventh  Charge  (which  was  ruled  out)  he 
attributes  to  me  the  words  of  my  beloved  teacher  Dr.  Dorner, 
when  I  have  expressly  disclaimed  in  my  argument,  as  you  will 
remember,  holding  that  particular  phase  of  his  doctrine.  It 
is  true  that  in  my  book  entitled  “Whither?”  on  pages  260  and 
261,  I  quoted  an  extract  from  Dr.  Dorner  with  reference  to 
those  who  had  passed  into  the  middle  state,  in  which  he  said  a 
few  words  about  the  condition  of  the  impenitent  there,  and  ex¬ 
presses  the  hope  that  some  of  them  may  be  saved ;  but  as  the 
greater  part  of  the  extract  (and  that  is  the  reason  why  I  cited 
it)  refers  to  the  progressive  sanctification  of  believers  who  have 
gone  into  the  middle  state,  I  did  not  in  “Whither?”  indorse 
every  word  that  Dr.  Dorner  said,  nor  did  I  think  it  necessary 
for  me  to  disclaim  that  portion  of  his  doctrine  when  I  said, 


CONCLUDING  REMARKS 


193 


“  Lest  any  one  should  stumble  at  these  excellent  thoughts,  owing 
to  the  name  of  Dorner,  I  shall  conclude  with  the  wise  words  of 
John  Wesley.”  The  previous  context  in  which  this  passage 
was  contained  shows  sufficiently  well  that  I  had  been  teaching 
the  doctrine  of  progressive  sanctification  of  believers  after 
death,  and  had  not  thought  of  any  change  for  unbelievers  so  far 
as  their  redemption  is  concerned.  And  in  the  argument  which 
I  made  before  you  I  took  the  precaution,  lest  any  one  should 
misunderstand  me,  when  I  quoted  this  extract  from  Dorner 
again,  to  disclaim  that  specific  teaching  of  Dorner  which  Dr. 
Lampe  has  again,  and  in  spite  of  my  disclaimer,  attributed  to 
me  this  afternoon. 

Much  more  might  be  said ;  but  I  forbear.  The  Charges  are 
in  your  hands.  You  have  my  defence.  You  should  read  i*t 
again  in  order  that  you  may  see  how  little  attention  has  been 
paid  to  it  by  Dr.  Lampe  in  his  argument  before  you  during  the 
three  days  in  which  you  have  heard  him,  and  in  order  that  you 
may  find  therein  an  answer  to  all  these  misrepresentations, 
which  are  thick  in  the  argument  that  you  have  heard  from  his 
lips.  You  have  heard  the  argument  of  the  prosecution.  Once 
more  I  challenge  you  before  God  to  judge  me  by  the  Holy 
Scripture  and  by  the  Westminster  Standards,  not  by  your  own 
opinions,  not  by  any  dogmatic  system  of  theology,  not  by  any¬ 
thing  attributed  to  me  by  the  prosecution — but  by  the  Holy 
Scripture  and  by  the  Standards;  and  then  you  will  give  a 
righteous  verdict,  to  which  I  shall  submit. 


. 


ii&’iihiii 

|llp|ti» 


ti*flt!ni^  ^iTtlwUulitiMfifcS 
iAui  lilSiliiinih  ‘  *iif  titil  fefl 


